Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, brought from the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Leek) Bill [Lords].

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Stoke-on-Trent) Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (No Standing Orders applicable),—

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, brought from the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Weymouth and Portland Joint Hospital District) Bill [Lords].

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wycombe and District Joint Hospital District) Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

South Devon and East Cornwall Hospital, Plymouth, Royal Albert Hospital, Devonport and Central Hospital, Plymouth (Amalgamation, etc.) Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Morley) Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Rotherham Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

JUVENILES.

Mr. JOHN RUTHERFORD: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour how many persons left school and entered the labour market in insurable occupations during 1933; and how this figure compares with the increase in the numbers of persons employed during that year?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I regret that there is no information available on this point. I should point out that entry into unemployment insurance has hitherto been at age 16, and therefore considerably later in most cases than the age of leaving school. This will be remedied under the Unemployment Bill.

Mr. LAWSON: Is it not possible to get this information? There are notes to the unemployment figures usually, and they refer to the number who have left school in the period?

Mr. HUDSON: The hon. Member will perhaps read this question rather carefully, and he will see that the information asked for is whether the persons who left school were in insurable employment, but the number entering insurable employment after leaving school is indefinite because of the gap between the normal school-leaving age and the minimum age of entering into insurance.

AGRICULTURAL AND NON-MANUAL WORKERS.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he proposes to take steps to include agricultural and non-manual workers within the scheme of unemployment insurance?

Mr. HUDSON: I would refer the hon. Member to the statements made on these subjects in this House during the passage of the Unemployment Bill.

Mr. GRENFELL: Has anything happened to justify the statements, made at by-elections in agricultural constituencies, in which the Minister was said to have pledged himself to do something for agriculture?

Mr. HUDSON: My attention and that of my right hon. Friend had not been drawn to this matter, and, if the hon. Member will let me have the particulars, I will look into them.

Mr. GRENFELL: Are we to assume from the reply that no authority has been given for those statements?

Mr. HUDSON: There is no authority beyond the statement made by my right hon. Friend in discussions on the Bill. The House will remember that specific instructions were put in the Bill making the duty of inquiring into the practicability of insuring agricultural workers a first duty of the statutory committee.

AGED WORKERS.

Mr. RUTHERFORD: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour how many persons left insurable occupations by reason of old age during 1933?

Mr. HUDSON: I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.

BRACKEN CUTTING.

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the encroachment of bracken on moorland can be arrested by cutting at this time of year; if he will en courage owners and tenants of moors to employ young men from mining villages for this purpose; and if he is aware that all that is required to enable these young men to undertake this work is the pro vision of a cheap camping outfit, which, if allowed to remain after bracken cut ting is finished, might enable them to secure further employment in haymaking and as grouse drivers and beaters?

Mr. HUDSON: I shall be happy to arrange, through the Employment Exchange service, for offers of work of the kind referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend to be put before suitable unemployed men in the depressed mining areas.

ALIENS (ENTRY PERMITS).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour how many permits have been granted to foreign waiters and
cocktail mixers to accept employment in British hotels during the past four months?

Mr. HUDSON: Permits for the employment of foreigners in hotels—apart from those required for highly specialised posts—are limited to student-employés under reciprocal arrangements made with foreign countries which provide corresponding facilities for British students. The number of such permits issued during the first five months of this year is 252.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Before the Ministry grant a permit do they ascertain whether the foreigner in a specialised occupation is displacing a long-established British workman?

Mr. HUDSON: To the best of my knowledge, I do not think that cocktail mixers can be regarded as specialist workers.

Mr. T. SMITH: Will he be insured?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that two British employés, with many years' service at the Savoy Hotel, were recently displaced by foreigners; whether his Department granted permits to the latter; and, if so, for what period?

Mr. HUDSON: I have no information leading me to suppose that any employés at this hotel have been displaced in consequence of permits issued by the Ministry; but if the hon. Member will give me any particulars that he has I will have inquiry made.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this specialist cock-tail-mixer has been employed by the Savoy Hotel for no less than 14 years, and that he has now been dismissed and replaced by an importee from New York, and does the Department give a permit in such cases as that?

Mr. HUDSON: I am not aware of that, and if the hon. Member will give me the particulars I will have them looked into.

Mr. HANNON: Surely we can get cocktail-mixers in this country. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take steps, in consultation with the committee for training waiters, in order to see that we have no more foreigners mixing cocktails?

Mr. LAWSON: Is this one of the students who came in to learn the language?

PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT (MOTORING OFFENCES).

Mr. HAMER RUSSELL: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any police record is kept of cases in which a person who has been proved to have been in charge of a motor car while under the influence of drink has been dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act; and whether he will consider an alteration in the law to pre vent the Probation of Offenders Act in connection with this class of offence from being applicable to persons holding public appointments?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): Yes, Sir; records are kept, and statistics of cases so dealt with are included in the annual Returns of Offences relating to motor vehicles which are presented to Parliament. As regards the second part of the question, I should deprecate any suggestion that in the application of the criminal law there should be a differentiation between persons holding public appointments and other persons.

LIFT ACCIDENT, BIRMINGHAM.

Mr. THORNE: 13.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received a re port from one of his inspectors in connection with the death of a steel erector who fell down a lift shaft at Rea Street, Birmingham; and whether the lift shaft was properly protected?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir. It appears that the erector slipped on stepping on to a plank and fell about three feet on to a staircase and thence unfortunately fell or rolled into the lift shaft through a gap between two girders and the stair. I am advised that the closing up of this gap was impracticable at the stage the work had reached.

MISSING PERSONS.

Mr. SUMMERSBY: 14.
asked the Home Secretary how many persons, male and female, respectively, in this country are
recorded as missing and untraceable by their relatives in a given period of, say five years?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret I am not able to give these figures.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (NYSTAGMUS).

Mr. TINKER: 15.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to cases where mine workers who have been suffering from nystagmus have been declared recovered by the medical referee and fit to resume their former occupation, but have been refused employment on the grounds that they are liable to contract nystagmus again; and will he consider amending the Workmen's Compensation Act so as to entitle them to compensation when they can prove they are deprived of employment because of having suffered from this disease?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Nystagmus is not the only injury or disease in view of which employers may be unwilling to take the risk of re-engaging the workman for his old work when he has become physically fit for it; and the question whether in such circumstances it is desirable, and indeed in his own interests, that the workman should be entitled to further compensation is by no means a simple one. Various other proposals have been made for modifying the conditions under which compensation is payable for this disease, and a full inquiry would be necessary before the question of amending legislation could be considered.

Mr. TINKER: Is the Minister aware that the House of Lords on 11th June decided a case of this character and that it is imperative that something should be done, because the men have no right to claim compensation and cannot get work when they are suffering from this disease? Surely the time has come when we should protect men in cases like these?

Sir J. GILMOUR: If I were satisfied that there was a general demand in the mining industry for an inquiry into this subject, I would be prepared to set up a committee.

BEDWAS COLLIERY, MONMOUTHSHIRE.

Mr. EDWARDS: 39.
asked the Secretary for Mines what is the percentage both of fatal and non-fatal accidents at Bedwas Colliery, Monmouthshire; and how do these percentages compare with those for the South Wales coalfield as a whole?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): The figures are being got out and if the hon. Member will be good enough to repeat his question next Tuesday, I shall then be able to reply.

Mr. EDWARDS: 40.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many notifiable accidents have occurred at the Bedwas Colliery, Monmouthshire, during the immediately preceding 12 months?

Mr. BROWN: During the 12 months ended 1st June last, the number of nonfatal accidents reported forthwith to the divisional inspector was sixteen.

Mr. EDWARDS: 41.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many fatal accidents have occurred at the Bedwas Colliery, Monmouthshire, during the immediately preceding 12 months?

Mr. BROWN: The number of fatal accidents at this colliery during the 12 months ended 1st June last was six.

Mr. DAVID DAVIES: 42.
asked the Secretary for Mines what is the number of inspections undertaken by His Majesty's inspector at the Bedwas colliery, Monmouthshire, during the 12 months ended the 1st June, 1934?

Mr. BROWN: The number is 39.

Mr. D. DAVIES: 43.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of inspections carried out by the workmen's inspectors, appointed under Section 16 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, at the Bedwas colliery, Monmouthshire, during the 12 months ended 1st June, 1934?

Mr. BROWN: Reports of eight such inspections have been communicated to the Divisional Inspector of Mines in pursuance of Section 16 of the Act.

Mr. D. DAVIES: 44.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that 4d. per week is being deducted from the wages of the workmen employed at the Bedwas colliery, Monmouthshire, for the purpose of defraying the cost of examination
under Section 16 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911; whether he will inquire if the money collected is used for the above-mentioned purpose; and whether the person appointed at the above-named colliery was appointed in accordance with the Coal Mines Act and regulations?

Mr. BROWN: I have made inquiry, and I understand that certain sums are deducted from the wages of the workmen in question by virtue of an agreement between the South Wales Miners' Industrial Union and Benefit Society and the Colliery Company. The total deductions, including Hospital and Insurance contributions, amount in all to one shilling and a halfpenny. The proportion of this total which represents contribution to the cost of Workmen's Examiners is not fourpence but one halfpenny. With regard to the second and third parts of the question, the answer in each case, so far as my information goes, is "Yes."

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.

Major OWEN: 18.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education how many local education authorities have submitted schemes for the raising of the school-leaving age to 15; whether any of these schemes have been sanctioned by his Department; and, if so, how many?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): Five local education authorities had already made by-laws before 1931 requiring attendance at school up to the age of 15. Since then, application for such a by-law has been made by 10 authorities. Of these, one has been allowed, two have been refused, and the remainder are under consideration.

Major OWEN: May I ask what were the grounds for the refusal?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Partly because the educational arrangements were not satisfactory and partly because the areas were not sufficiently self-contained to prevent difficulties of employment arising with neighbouring areas.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, BIRMINGHAM.

Mr. DENVILLE: 17.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of
Education whether he will ascertain the total cost to the public authorities entailed in the prosecution and conviction of Mr. Finlan, in Birmingham, who was fined for refusing to send his child to a council school at Stretford?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM.: My Noble Friend regrets that it would not be practicable to obtain the information asked for in the question, but the actual cost of the legal proceedings to the local education authority was 5s.

Mr. DENVILLE: Will the hon. Gentleman give us Finlan's reason for refusing to send his child to a council school?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The position is quite simple. The child has to go to school, and the parent appears to think the nearest Catholic school is too far off. It would be unreasonable to suppose that the local education authority can convey children of every religious denomination to the school of their choice, if the school does not happen to be on their doorstep.

Mr. LOGAN: Could not the education authority make provision for people who are not in a position to pay?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I say it is quite impossible to provide motor conveyances to take every child to the school of the parent's choice.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SHOREDITCH.

Mr. SUMMERSBY: 19.
asked the Minister of Health how many new houses or habitations are being built, especially in or near Shoreditch; and what will be the rents payable?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): The borough of Shoreditch is in the main built upon and offers few, if any, new sites for the erection of houses. I am, however, aware of proposals for the erection of 208 dwellings in Shoreditch itself or intended for the use of inhabitants of Shoreditch. Of these, 160 are being erected by the London County Council, 24 by the Borough Council and 24 by the Shoreditch Housing Association. The rents in the first two instances will range, exclusive of rates, from 6s. per week upwards. I
have no information of the anticipated rents of houses provided by the association.

Mr. SUMMERSBY: 20.
asked the Minister of Health how many houses there are in Essex Street, Shoreditch, and Crondell Street, Shoreditch, respectively and how many people, including children, live in each house; and whether each family has separate washing convenience and separate facilities for cooking; and what is the approximate average rent paid per family?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am informed that the number of houses in Essex Street is 58 and the number in Crondell Street is 74; that in Crondell Street there are also 16 flats; that the average number of occupants of a house in these streets is, in Essex Street 21, and in Crondell Street 12; that these houses, which were originally built for occupation by separate families, have not in general been so adapted as to provide, separately for each family now in occupation, the conveniences mentioned; and that the average rents per letting vary from 4 s. 6d. to 15s. per week.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Will these houses come within the definition of being suitable for slum clearance, or are they merely cases of overcrowding?

Sir H. YOUNG: The information is that they were not considered suitable for inclusion in slum clearance areas, but that action in respect of individual houses is contemplated.

Mr. THORNE: Will the Minister be able to authorise the sanitary inspectors in those areas to make a house-to-house inspection in order to say whether they think the houses are in proper condition?

Sir P. HARRIS: Is it not the fact that there is nowhere else for these people to live, and that that is the real cause of the overcrowding?

Mr. DICKIE: Did I understand the Minister to say that the rents charged were as high as 15s., and has he no power to prevent profiteering?

Sir H. YOUNG: Whether there is profiteering depends, of course, entirely upon the nature and size of the premises. I have said that the rents vary from 4s. 6d. to 15s. As regards the sanitary
inspectors, they certainly have a right to make an inspection, when investigating the nature of the premises.

Mr. PIKE: Can the Minister state the average number of rooms in these houses?

Sir H. YOUNG: I certainly could not state that without notice. If the hon. Member will give me notice of the question, I will do my best to give him the information he requires.

Mr. SUMMERSBY: In view of the Minister's admission as to the extremely unsatisfactory hygienic state of these houses, may I ask whether the Ministry are not considering the possibility of using a large open space at Victoria Park, part of which is already in use and which is nearby, for decanting the people from their homes until the houses have been rebuilt?

Sir H. YOUNG: That is a proposal which applies to a very much wider area than Crondell Street. The whole question, I understand, has been considered and is being considered by the county council.

COUNCIL HOUSE TENANTS.

Mr. RANKIN: 23.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will recommend to local authorities concerned the desirability of making an inquiry to ascertain the number of tenants living in council houses subsidised from the rates and taxes, who possess garages and motor cars, with the object of suggesting to them that they should vacate their premises in favour of poorer tenants?

Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir. The management of council houses is a matter for which the local authorities concerned are themselves responsible.

Mr. PIKE: Can the Minister say how many councillors who themselves own motor cars and garages live in these houses?

SLUM CLEARANCE.

Mr. FLEMING: 21.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has anything further to report concerning the committee which he intended to set up to consider the construction of tenement buildings or flats on slum sites which have been cleared or are to be cleared?

Sir H. YOUNG: The constitution of the committee is now on the point of com-
pletion, and I hope to be able to announce its membership and terms of reference in the course of the next few days.

DOVEDALE (PRESEKVATION).

Mr. MANDER: 22.
asked the Minister of Health the present position with regard to the formation of a joint planning committee between the Staffordshire and Derbyshire County Councils for the preservation of Dovedale; and what the position now is?

Sir H. YOUNG: I understand that at a recent conference of local authorities in Derbyshire, called by the Derbyshire County Council, a decision was taken to form a joint planning committee for an area comprising the portion of Dovedale which is in Derbyshire. So far as I am aware the two county councils have not yet discussed the question of combining to form a joint committee for planning purposes.

IMPORTED FOOD REGULATIONS (BONELESS MEAT).

Captain ELLISTON: 24.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, as the result of the operation of the meat quota, there has been a large increase in the importation of meat from which the bones and other tissues of little value have been removed; and whether, in view of the fact that this meat cannot be examined on arrival as to its freedom from disease, he will take steps to include it in the schedule of prohibited meat under the Public Health (Imported Food) Regulations?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am aware of the increase in the imports of boneless meat. The importation of boneless meat which affords insufficient means of identification with definite parts of a carcase is already prohibited by the Imported Food Regulations, and official certificates of inspection at the time of slaughter are required, subject to certain exceptions, with any imported meat less than the whole carcase. On public health grounds, therefore, I do not consider it necessary to take the action proposed.

Captain ELLISTON: Is it not possible that these pieces of boned meat may have been cut from carcases which would have been condemned in this country?

Sir H. YOUNG: If my hon. Friend will consider the terms of my answer, he will find that, as regards parts which are unidentifiable, certificates as to the state of the meat are required.

Mr. LAWSON: Does that apply to "boneless wonders"?

DEATH DUTIES.

Mr. STOURTON: 25.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the death of Sir James Knott, who amassed a fortune in the North of England and left £5,000,000, which sum in its entirety escapes Death Duties payable in the United Kingdom due to the fact that he had abandoned his English domicile and acquired a domicile in Jersey; can he say whether the beneficiaries under the will propose to voluntarily pay duty as though the English domicile had been retained; and whether it is the intention to take steps to prevent such evasions at the expense of the community in future?

Mr. RANKIN: 29.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to another case of the evasion of Death Duties by a testator taking up residence in Jersey in the final years of his life; and whether he will consider introducing legislation to deal with cases of this nature?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): My attention has been drawn to the case to which my hon. Friends refer; but, as they will appreciate, I am not prepared to disclose information as to the position in regard to taxation in a particular case. They may, however, rest assured that the subject of avoidance, not merely of Death Duties, but of taxation generally, is not overlooked, and that, should the necessity arise, appropriate action in the matter will be taken.

Mr. STOURTON: Would my right hon. Friend consider introducing legislation to invalidate domicile abroad for a period of 10 years prior to death, and thus overcome this point?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the line by a former Poet Laureate:
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles.

Mr. LAWSON: Bad as this case is as regards the country generally, is it not especially bad in view of the area from which the fortune was taken?

GERMAN CREDITS.

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: 26.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any means of caculating the amount of credits held in this country by German nationals; and the approximate amount?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the question refers to credits due to German nationals, the answer to the first part is in the negative. The second part does not, therefore, arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

BUTTER.

Mr. MANDER: 33.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the quantity of butter imported, the quantity produced in Great Britain, and the average price of butter in each of the years 1928 to 1933?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): As the reply consists of statistical tables, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Imports, home production and prices of Butter in Great Britain.


Gross Imports of Butter into the United Kingdom, 1928 to 1933.


Year.
From British Countries.
From Foreign Countries
Total.




Cwt.
Cwt.
Cwt.


1928
…
2,656,593
3,456,379
6,112,972


1929
…
2,652,543
3,744,723
6,397,266


1930
…
3,070,156
3,751,464
6,821,620


1931
…
3,990,033
4,070,035
8,060,068


1932
…
4,336,558
4,027,809
8,364,367


1933*
…
4,656,664
4,177,850
8,834,514


* Provisional figures.

Note.—Separate figures for Great Britain are not available.

Estimated Home Production of Butter in Great Britain in 1930–31. *





Quantity. Cwt.


Made on Farms
…
…
702,800


Made off Farms
…
…
94,400


Total
…
…
797,200


* Information in respect of the other years in the period 1928 to 1933 is not available.

Average Annual Prices (per cwt.) of Butter (wholesaler to retailer) in England and Wales for the years 1928 to 1933.


Year.
British (fresh dairy).
Australian (salted).
New Zealand (salted).
Danish.
Argentine.





1st quality.
2nd quality.
1st quality.
2nd quality.
1st quality.
2nd quality.
1st quality.
2nd quality.
1st quality.
2nd quality.





s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d
s.
d.


1928
…
…
214
6
191
6
171
0
165
0
179
0
174
0
192
6
188
0
172
6
164
0


1929
…
…
210
0
191
6
175
0
169
6
177
6
173
0
186
6
182
6
174
0
166
0


1930
…
…
180
6
160
0
135
6
130
0
137
0
132
6
155
0
151
0
136
0
126
0


1931
…
…
158
6
140
0
116
6
112
6
120
0
115
6
135
0
131
0
117
6
110
6


1932
…
…
149
6
128
6
105
0
101
0
108
6
104
0
124
0
120
0
103
6
96
0


1933
…
…
137
6
119
0
87
0
82
6
87
6
83
6
108
6
103
6
83
6
76
6

IRISH CATTLE (IMPORTS).

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: 34.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of fat cattle imported into Great Britain from the Irish Free State and from Northern Ireland, respectively, for the latest four weeks for which figures are available, and for the corresponding four weeks last year?

Mr. ELLIOT: Imports of fat cattle shipped from Irish Free State ports to Great Britain in the four weeks ended 16th June, 1934, recorded in connection with the Cattle (Import Regulation) Order, were as follow:

Week ended—

1934.


26th May
956


2nd June
763


9th June
852


16th June
514


Four weeks ended 16th



June
3,085

Comparable figures for the corresponding period of 1933 are not available, since the classification of Irish Free State cattle on importation into Great Britain as fat or store animals was only introduced when the Cattle (Import Regulation)
Order came into operation at the beginning of this year. Imports of Northern Irish fat cattle into Great Britain are not subject to regulation, and, therefore, no figures are available.

EGGS.

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND (for Sir ROBERT GOWER): 30.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the temporary arrangement with those foreign countries which export eggs to this country, to restrict imports from 15th March to 14th September, the low level of prices of home-produced eggs has not only continued but become more serious; whether, having regard to the circumstances that it is calculated that there will be an increase of from 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. in the price of feeding stuffs, and that there will be a considerable increase in the supply of eggs from Australia and South Africa, which though cold stored can under the existing law be put on the market as new laid eggs, he will reconsider the desirability of putting into operation some definite measure of restriction until the poultry industry has had sufficient time to consider and act upon the recommendations of Dr. Addison's Report; and whether he has any statement to make?

Mr. ELLIOT: Prices of home-produced eggs have in fact advanced in recent weeks in accordance with the normal seasonal trend at this time of the year, being for National Mark standards 11s. per great hundred on 18th June as compared with 8s. 3d. per great hundred on 13th March, although the latest prices are somewhat lower than for the corresponding period of 1933. I do not know on what grounds my hon. Friend bases his assumption that there will be a rise of from 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. in the price of feeding stuffs, but the index number for May for feeding stuffs was 82, which was one point lower than the previous month, and three points below the figure for May, 1933. As regards the present arrangements for the regulation of imports of eggs in shell, I made a full statement in reply to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) on 26th June, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend.

LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY.

Sir W. WAYLAND (for Sir R. GOWER): 31 and 32.
asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) whether he has yet considered the resolution recently passed by the council of the National Farmers' Union, and sent to him, calling his attention to the position that his policy aiming at an improvement of the condition of agriculture is jeopardised by the fact that the beef situation, instead of showing any sign of improvement, is steadily growing worse, with the result that breeders and feeders are in a precarious position, and asking him to take steps to place the livestock industry on a remunerative basis and in that connection to impose further restrictions on meat imports and to tighten up the administration of import restrictions; and whether he has any statement to make;
(2) whether he has yet considered the resolution recently passed by the council of the National Farmers' Union, and sent to him, asking that an immediate and expeditious inquiry should be conducted by him into the possibility of a supplementary measure to assist the livestock industry, based on a levy scheme on the lines of the Wheat Act; and whether he has any statement to make?

Mr. ELLIOT: I have received the resolutions to which my hon. Friend refers. I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

POWER METHYLATED SPIRITS.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: 28.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of alcohol, distilled from molasses, to be used as motor fuel, in this country during the first five months of this year, or such shorter period as figures are available for, and the corresponding figures for the last two years?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The quantities of power methylated spirits issued during the first three months in each of the years 1932, 1933 and 1934 were respectively 6,045, 26,308 and 148,045 bulk gallons.

REGENT'S PARK.

Mr. BURNETT: 36.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of his decision of 25th June to allow various bodies to continue to hold garden fetes and theatrical performances in the Botanical Gardens, Regent's Park, at a time when the new rose and flower gardens are at their best, he will minimise the inconvenience caused to the general public through the booths and other erections by allocating for such entertainments an area other than that containing the flower gardens in the enclosed area of the Botanical Gardens?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I would point out to my hon. Friend that the open air theatre involves no interference with the enjoyment of the rose and flower gardens by the public, and I would remind him that, in my reply of the 25th June to my hon. Friend the Member for West Fulham (Sir C. Cobb), I stated that I had no intention of allowing any considerable extension of the existing practice under which I give permission for two garden fetes in the course of a year. On these two days public access to the rose garden is maintained, but it is unfortunately impossible to preserve such access to the flower gardens during the fetes, and I cannot allocate any other area for the purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

JEMAL HUSSEINI.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any appeal has been made from
the sentence of one month's imprisonment imposed upon the Arab Jemal Husseini for arousing riots; if so, when it will be heard; and whether bail has been allowed?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): Jamal el Husseini was sentenced to 10 months imprisonment with hard labour. He has appealed, and bail has been granted pending the hearing of the appeal, which will take place on the 2nd July.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask why there is this difference between Jemal Husseini and Achi Meir? Is it an example of British justice in Palestine?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think it is proper for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to ask questions of that kind, and certainly it would be most improper for me to comment on the conduct of justice in either the one case or the other.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that equal justice is handed out both to Arab and to Jew in Palestine?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has no business to make an insinuation of that kind against the judiciary, which carries out English principles of justice in every case.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman has no business to attempt to teach me my business in looking after British interests.

CITIZENSHIP (AMERICANS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 48.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether American subjects as well as British subjects enjoy the right of being able to take up Palestinian citizenship without sacrificing their rights as American citizens?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): This is a matter of United States law on which I cannot express an opinion.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that United States citizens have a right to vote in Tanganyika, and I think in Kenya, and in that case is it not a
matter for the mandatary Power rather than for the United States Government?

Sir J. SIMON: I must ask for notice with regard to other areas. As far as the original question is concerned, I am asked whether in certain events individuals sacrifice their rights as American citizens. I do not think anyone speaking here could undertake to define those rights.

BRITISH UNION OF FASCISTS.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any information as to the statement issued by the British Union of Fascists in Malta at the command of Sir Oswald Mosley that, under the rule of the British Union of Fascists, the Italian language is to be taught in the schools as well as the Maltese and English languages; and if he will inquire into the matter?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have seen a newspaper report to this effect. I hardly think the matter is worth a special inquiry.

Mr. FOOT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he saw in that statement, which was supplied by the Reuter agency, the further explanation that:
The British Union of Fascists anticipate no difficulties in this connection, in view of the present great friendship and intimate understanding between the Italian Fascist Government and the British Union of Fascists";
and does he not think that that is a matter of some importance?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir, I really do not think that an irresponsible statement by Fascists is a matter of very great importance.

Lieut.-Commander BOWER: Is not this just one more example of the non-British origin of this organisation?

HOLIDAYS WITH PAY.

Mr. TINKER (for Mr. K1RKW00D): 3.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that many workers in Scotland, Wales, and England will be forced to take annual holidays without pay, which loss of income will seriously affect their households; and, in view of these circum-stances, will he consider the advisability
of introducing legislation making it compulsory for all workers to have 14 days' annual holiday with pay?

Mr. HUDSON: In various industries in Great Britain there are collective agreements containing provision for paid holidays, but I am aware that many workers falling outside the scope of these agreements have no such provision. In regard to the question of introducing legislation on the matter, I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 13th July, 1933.

Mr. TINKER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I and other Members of Parliament are looking forward with pleasurable anticipation to our holidays, and that we are to be paid? What is good for us is surely good for the majority of the workers?

ARMAMENTS (EXPORT LICENCES).

Mr. MANDER: 45.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether a licence is required for the export of the following munitions of war: warships, tanks, heavy artillery and aeroplanes?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Licences from the Board of Trade are required in connection with the export of tanks and heavy artillery. Specific licences are not necessary for unarmed aeroplanes which, under an open general export licence, may be exported to any destination other than Abyssinia. If an aeroplane is armed, an export licence is required in respect of the armament. Licences, which are issued by the Admiralty, are required for the export of warships.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

WATERLOO BRIDGE.

Sir J. SANDERSON: 46.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that the London County Council have now decided to abolish Waterloo Bridge, he will consider making a grant from the Road Fund towards the construction of the new bridge?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY or TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): No, Sir.

ACCIDENTS (BUILT-UP AREAS).

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: 47.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the statistics of accidents in built-up areas quoted in the report on fatal road accidents are accidents which occurred in areas where buildings actually abutted on to the road or in areas where a system of street lighting existed, as described in Clause 1 of the Road Traffic Bill now before the House?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The report to which my hon. Friend refers was based on information given by chief constables who were asked to state in respect of each fatal road accident whether or not it occurred in a built-up area. When the returns were made, Clause 1 of the Road Traffic Bill, 1934, had not been drafted and the distinction between built-up and other areas was left to the judgment of the chief constables concerned.

Sir W. BRASS: Am I to understand that the accidents reported in these statistics were in real built-up areas and not hypothetical ones?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: My hon. and gallant Friend may understand what he likes.

PORTSMOUTH (VISIT OF GERMAN CRUISERS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 49.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when, and why, the German fleet was invited to visit Portsmouth; when they will arrive; when will they go; and are the officers or men to be allowed to come to London also?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): The first part of the question is based upon a misapprehension. The German fleet has not been invited to visit Portsmouth, and is not doing so. Two German cruisers are paying an informal visit to Portsmouth from 11th to 15th July. For a visit of this kind, under an arrangement agreed with Germany in February, 1932, and following general international practice, an invitation is neither given nor expected. It is merely notified to the country visited. The present visit was notified on 6th June. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In view of the revelations in the Press this morning, is it not rather foolish to allow these people to come to London and Portsmouth?

Commander MARSDEN: In view of the fact that association with sailors of any nation is the best way of getting friendly relations with that nation, should not we not only allow these men to come to London but invite them?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: As I have said, it is not a question of invitation. While this is the first visit of German ships to this country since the War, our ships have paid several visits and have always received the most cordial welcome, and it would be a gross breach of hospitality not to extend to them a similar welcome.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the swastika flag going to be hoisted on English territory?

Mr. THORNE: What is the object of the German fleet coming into British waters, and is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Germans are building armies and fleets for the purpose of knocking Europe to pieces?

SCOTLAND (MARR TRUST).

Mr. TINKER (for Mr. KIRK-WOOD): 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the decision of the Department of Education to hand over the administration of Marr College, Troon, to an ad hoc body under which the college would be opened to pupils from all parts is resented by people in Troon, as the Marr bequest was left for the education of children resident in Troon; and will he consider the advisability of introducing a Bill to bring the college under public control and management?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) on 19th June, 1934, in which my right hon. Friend pointed out that the Town Council of Troon and the Trustee had lodged strong objections against the transference of the college to the county council as education authority. In these
circumstances, my right hon. Friend sees no reason for taking any such action as is suggested in the last part of the question. I am not aware that there is any intention to admit to the college pupils from all parts to the exclusion of the children of Troon.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister what business it is proposed to take next week?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): On Monday: Committee stage of the Petroleum (Production) Bill [Lords].

Tuesday: Supply (11th Allotted Day), Committee, Ministry of Health Vote.

Wednesday: Supply (12th Allotted Day), Committee. The subject of the Vote has not yet been handed in, but it will be announced as soon as possible.

Thursday: Report and Third Reading of the Poor Law (Scotland) Bill, and consideration of a Motion to approve the Milk Scheme for the North of Scotland.

The business for Friday will be announced later.

On any day, if there is time, other Orders may be taken.

Sir W. BRASS: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he intends the House to sit very late to-night; and whether he is aware that it is not only the Report stage of the Traffic Bill that we are to take, but that there are parts of three Clauses which are being recommitted by the Minister of Transport which have to be considered before the Report stage starts?

The PRIME MINISTER: I propose to move the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule in order that we may get, at any rate, the Report stage of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 34.

Division No. 307.]
AYES.
[3.24 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Graves, Marjorie
Palmer, Francis Noel


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Grimston, R. V.
Pearson, William G.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Albery, Irving James
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pickering, Ernest H.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Guy, J. C- Morrison
Pike, Cecil F.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Radford, E. A.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Hales, Harold K.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hanbury, Cecil
Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Harris, Sir Percy
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Hartland, George A.
Rankin, Robert


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Rea, Walter Russell


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Bernays, Robert
Hepworth, Joseph
Remer, John R.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Blindell, James
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rickards, George William


Bossom, A. C.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Boulton, W. W.
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ross, Ronald D.


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rothschild, James A. de


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hurd, Sir Percy
Runge, Norah Cecil


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'ld, Hexham)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Ker, J. Campbell
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Burnett, John George
Knight, Holford
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Knox, Sir Alfred
Scone, Lord


Castlereagh, Viscount
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Law, Sir Alfred
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)
Leckie, J. A.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Lees-Jones, John
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Chapman, Col.R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Leigh, Sir John
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield Hallam)


Christie, James Archibald
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


Clarke, Frank
Levy, Thomas
Somervell, Sir Donald


Clarry, Reginald George
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Llewellin, Major John J.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Mabane, William
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Stevenson, James


Colville, Lieut.-colonel J.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Stewart, J. H. (File, E.)


Cook, Thomas A.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stones, James


Copeland, Ida
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Cranborne, Viscount
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
McKeag, William
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
McKie, John Hamilton
Summersby, Charles H.


Crossley, A. C.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Sutcliffe, Harold


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Magnay, Thomas
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Denman, Hon. R D.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Denville, Alfred
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Dickie, John P.
Manningham-Buner, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Train, John


Drewe, Cedric
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tree, Ronald


Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Dunglass, Lord
Meller, Sir Richard James
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Edmondson, Major Sir James
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Milne, Charles
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Elmley, Viscount
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tfd & Chisw'k)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Emrys- Evans, P. V.
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Wayland, Sir William A.


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
White, Henry Graham


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Fox, Sir Gilford
Morrison, William Shepherd
Willoughby do Eresby, Lord


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Gledhill, Gilbert
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid



Goff, Sir Park
Nunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir



Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
George Penny.




NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Batey, Joseph
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Buchanan, George
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Thorns, William James


Cape, Thomas
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Cove, William G.
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
West, F. R.


Daggar, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Davies, Stephen Owen
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Dobbie, William
Logan, David Gilbert
Wilmot, John


Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentine L.



Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. G. Macdonald

BILLS REPORTED.

POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 161.]

TORQUAY CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION (SCOTLAND) BILL,

"to repeal certain enactments providing for the protection of wild birds in Scotland, and to substitute other provisions therefor," presented by the Marquess of Clydesdale; to be read a Second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 162.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend certain provisions of the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888, and Section seven of the Sea Fisheries Act, 1883." [Sea Fisheries Regulation Bill [Lords].

Consolidation Bills,—That they have appointed a Committee consisting of six Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons to consider all Consolidation Bills in the present Session, and request the Commons to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

Special Report from the Committee of Public Accounts brought up, and read;

Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Second Report from the Committee of Public Accounts, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and lead;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — ROAD TRAFFIC BILL.

Order for consideration as amended (in the Standing Committee) read.

3.34 p.m.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I beg to move,
That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendments in Clause 1, page 3, lines 14 and 26,. in Clause 15, page 14, lines 2 and 4, and in Clause 21, page 16, lines 19 and 27, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Stanley.
It is necessary for me to move the recommittal of the Bill in respect of these Amendments. The Amendment in Clause 1, page 3, line 14, has been put down as the result of a pledge I gave the Committee during the discussions on Clause 1. As the Bill was drafted and considered by the Committee the duty was placed on highway authorities to erect a sign in respect of those portions of the road which were brought under the definition of a built-up area, or excluded from it by the machinery of the Clause, but no conditions were made for sign-posting of restricted areas which fell under the general definition of a built-up area. I was impressed by some of the arguments advanced with regard to the necessity of sign posting these areas, and as a consequence I gave a pledge which this Amendment carries out. As it alters in some respects the duties of highway authorities it is necessary to re-commit the Bill in that respect. The next Amendment in respect of which the Bill is recommitted is also in Clause 1, on line 26, and this is necessitated purely by a point of procedure. At the time when we passed the Amendment in Committee the phrase "urban district" covered both urban district councils and non-county boroughs, but subsequently certain provisions of the Local Government Act came into force and the term "urban district" no longer covers non-county boroughs. It is, therefore, necessary to make a drafting Amendment. The two Amendments to Clause 15 are only drafting Amendments, but as they refer to the duties put upon highway authorities they have to be considered again in Committee. The Amendments to Clause 21 are necessitated by a new Clause which
was moved by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb). I warned him at the time that while I accepted the principle it might be necessary to introduce certain Amendments to safeguard the position of other local authorities, and these Amendments are the result of conferences between all the authorities concerned. As the effect may be in certain cases to alter the incidence of the charge as between different local authorities it is necessary for them to be reconsidered in Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(General speed limit of thirty miles per hour in built-up areas.)

3.38 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, to leave out Sub-section (7), and to insert:
(7) It shall be the duty of the local authority—

(a) to erect and maintain traffic signs in such positions as may be requisite in order to give effect to general or other directions given by the Minister for the purpose of securing that adequate guidance is given to drivers of motor vehicles as to the places where a length of road begins, and ceases, to be a road in a built-up area, or as to a direction being in force as respects a length of road that it shall be deemed to be, or not to be a road in a built-up area; and
(b) to alter or remove traffic signs as may be requisite in order to give effect to such directions as aforesaid, either in consequence of the making of an order by the Minister under Sub-section (5) of this Section or otherwise;
and if the local authority make default in executing any works required for the performance of the duty imposed upon them by this Sub-section, the Minister may himself execute the works and recover summarily as a civil debt from the local authority the expenses incurred by him in so doing.
(8) The power conferred on the Minister by Sub-section (2) of Section forty-eight of the principal Act to prescribe the size, colour, and type of traffic signs shall include power to make regulations providing for the illumination during hours of darkness during which a speed limit is to be observed under this Section of traffic signs to be erected under this Section, or for the attachment of reflectors thereto.
This places upon local authorities the duty of erecting certain signs in accordance with directions given by the Minister of Transport. This power is drawn in the widest possible terms because it is essen-
tial that we should have a free hand to decide from experience what are the most suitable signs to erect under given conditions. It is only necessary for me to emphasise the changes which have been made from the original scheme. The original scheme of Clause 1 was that any area where a lighting system is provided shall be considered a built-up area but while the bulk of built-up areas will coincide with that definition there are a number of marginal cases which will be excluded which ought to be included, and a number of areas which ought to be included which will be left out. Therefore, machinery is provided for treating as built-up areas some portions of road on which lighting is not provided and for treating as not built-up areas some portions of road upon which there is street lighting. It was the intention that these exceptions, whether they are of the character of inclusions or exclusions, should be separately and definitely marked, and power to do so was taken in the Bill as originally drafted.
Several hon. Members during the passage of the Clause through Committee drew attention to the difficulty which motorists might experience upon entering a built-up area in seeing a system of lighting which would be a warning to them that a speed limit was in force in that area. I think it is the general desire of all hon. Members, whether they think that a speed limit is going to be effective in reducing the number of accidents or not, that at any rate it should have a fair trial and it is obvious that it will not receive a fair trial unless proper warning is given to the motorist and a proper opportunity of observing the law is afforded to him. Nothing could be more unfortunate than that the people who desire to give this experiment a chance and to observe the provisions of the Act passed by Parliament, should fail to do so because of any obscurity.
I frankly confess that as a result of the discussion in Committee I have come to the conclusion that these warning signs will have to be erected on a much greater scale than I had originally contemplated. I think hon. Members will agree that it is necessary to leave the powers wide and not to define too strictly the actual methods of sign posting to be used. It is, of course, first of all necessary for me to consult, as I am doing, the various
highway authorities to get their opinions upon it. I shall also want to learn at subsequent stages the views of those most directly concerned, namely, the motoring organisations. I think it will interest the Committee if I read to them the relevant passages from a letter which I have addressed to the highway authorities:
It will be appreciated that the Bill is still before Parliament and that the proposals it contains in regard to a speed limit, as well as the detailed provisions for giving effect to those proposals, are, therefore, subject to further decision. But on the assumption that arrangements have to be made on the lines suggested in paragraph 2 of this letter"—
that is, on the lines now outlined in the Bill—
the Minister contemplates issuing a direction that the sign shown in diagram I shall be erected at such places on every 'restricted' length of road that they will be clearly visible to drivers entering the length of road at any point of entry from—

(a) any adjacent length of the same road;
(b) any de-restricted road; or
(c) any unrestricted road other than an unclassified road which the local authority is satisfied is unlikely to be used to any substantial extent by traffic other than purely local traffic. The possible scope of these exceptions is a matter on which the Minister will particularly welcome the views of the local authorities."
The effect of that is that in areas subject to the speed limit control warning signs will be erected upon every road, except those which the highway authorities and I agree are roads unlikely to be used to any substantial extent by traffic other than purely local traffic. We do not wish to extend the system of sign-posting beyond the immediate necessity. I am sure we can all think of a number of little lanes leading into villages or towns where the erection of such sign-posts would be unnecessary, but hon. Members may take my assurance that on any road which is substantially used by motorists and where there is a real risk of the motorist not knowing that he is about to enter an area subject to the speed limit, he will not have to rely merely upon seeing that there is a system of lighting, but will be assisted by some special sign which will leave him in no doubt.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: The provision of these signs may occasion considerable cost to the authorities. Will there be any
grant for this purpose out of the Road Fund?

Mr. STANLEY: Any signs erected under this Clause will be subject to the same rate of grant as that which applies to signs of this character which are erected now. I may say with reference to the Amendment in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Battersea (Commander Marsden) which proposes, after the word "signs" in line 2 of my Amendment, to insert:
and to place traffic signs on the surface of the carriageway.
that I have included in this letter to the local authorities the following words:
I am to add that in prescribing these signs the Minister would wish to leave open for further consideration the possible alternative of prescribed markings in the bed of the carriageway itself.
I do not wish to anticipate discussion on an individual Amendment, but I realise the possibility of the most suitable kind of sign being found to be a marking upon the surface of the carriageway. It is true that the Departmental Committee which dealt with these signs, and which reported about a year ago, was adverse to them, but I am asking the opinion of the local authorities, and I shall ask the opinion of the motoring organisations, upon this possibility. I hope that hon. Members who formed part of the Committee upstairs and who recollect our discussions upon this matter and the pledge which I gave then, will feel that in the Amendment now moved by me I am fully carrying out my undertaking, and will take my assurance that it is the intention that in future, under this scheme, the motorist should be given due warning of entry into a built-up area at all places where confusion would otherwise be likely to arise.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."

3.50 p.m.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: I am sure that all of us who were in the Standing Committee upstairs are grateful to the Minister for implementing his promise to put down this Amendment, but I should like to ask whether the Amendments to this proposed Amendment,
standing in my name, to leave out certain words and to insert others, are to be called. If so, I do not propose to comment now on the remarks of the Minister.

The CHAIRMAN: As at present advised, I propose to call the Amendments to this proposed Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member. I do not see that they are out of order, but I cannot make a definite pledge in advance.

3.51 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I am glad that the Minister has moved this Amendment, because it obviates the difficulty in which we found ourselves in the original Bill of driving along and looking at the sky when trying to avoid people on the road, but I hope he will also make it clear, not only when we come into the speed limit area, but when we go out of it. It has been very difficult, with some knowledge of the old speed limit, to know when you were out of it, and I hope that, just as we are to be told when we are going in, so we shall be told when we go out. I also want to ask if the Minister has given up all idea of putting into force other speed limits under the old Act. The Committee will be aware of the fact that the Minister has power at present to prescribe any speed limit he likes on application from a local authority, and I want to know whether this 30 miles an hour speed limit is to be the minimum, and the only minimum, throughout the country, because it may well occur that some towns within the 30-mile speed limit will ask for a lower speed limit still, and then what sort of signs shall we have; or is it the intention of the Minister to say that from henceforth he has given up all idea of a lower speed limit than 30 miles an hour in dense areas? The 30-mile limit is absurd. It is either far too fast in the dense areas or far too slow in other areas.

Mr. STANLEY: On a point of Order. Shall I be entitled on this Amendment, which deals only with signposts, to reply to any remarks on the speed limit as a whole?

The CHAIRMAN: There are certain references to particular matters which I
cannot say are out of order, but a discussion on these matters may be out of order.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I thought I did very well considering, but I would ask whether, within the 30 miles area, there will be another sign of the same type and the possibility of a reduced speed again.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: We do not yet know what the signs are going to be, but I can imagine that a sign might be put up, either by a local authority or on private land, which would be obscure by night. Has the Minister power to arrange for these signs to be removed?

4.54 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Following on what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) as to a variation in the speed limit, and assuming that there is a 30-mile limit, which may extend over very many miles—in some cases, I suppose, for scores of miles, if one is going, for instance, through Warrington up towards Lancaster, where it is almost impossible for a very long time to get out of the lit-up area—obviously within the limits of ingress and egress there would be some parts where a lower limit might well be established. I am concerned with the villages, where the houses may allow for a very narrow road and where there is continual anxiety because of the danger to children, and I assume that a motorist will know that, although he enters upon a 30 miles an hour area, nevertheless there may be established, in special areas of exceptional danger inside such an area, a speed limit in which there is collaboration between the Ministry of Transport and the local authority. I hope that motorists will not assume that 30 miles an hour is the limit generally allowed as soon as they get into a lit-up area. I hope there will be further activity on the part of those who have immediate knowledge of local conditions for the establishment, it may be, of a limit of no more than 10 miles an hour through some of the exceptionally dangerous parts of the country. One would assume that there must be in a local area a local limit established.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: On a point of Order. Is not the hon. Member committing the same fault that I was? Is not this Clause merely a matter of signposts?

The CHAIRMAN: I think it is clear where the limit of relevance comes. Discussion of the merits or otherwise of the 30 miles an hour limit or some other speed limit generally would, I think, be beyond the provisions of this Amendment, but the question of signs, where some different speed limit might be imposed, is within the provisions of the Amendment.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The question was put at the outset of his speech by the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey whether there would be other limits, and, therefore, I expressed the hope that there would be a limit within a limit, and I assume that every motorist would respect that, but I do not think there can be any real difficulty upon that point. There will be a sign which will be clearly common throughout the country, and I contemplate that under this Clause a motorist using the roads in any part of the country would look out for the sign indicating that he was in a lit-up area. Then there will be local signs, which will be distinctive, showing that he has come into a more dangerous area, and I do not think there need be any apprehension on the part of those who have the privilege of using the roads of the country, a privilege which is always subservient to the rights of the unfortunate pedestrian.

3.59 p.m.

Sir GIFFORD FOX: Can the Minister give us an assurance that the great change which this new Amendment makes is that no longer will the motorist have to watch out for street lights or lamps at the tops of poles or houses, but that we are going back to the old system and that wherever a motorist must drive 30 miles an hour, he will pass into an area marked by some form of signpost and will not be worried at all with the problem of looking for the lights that he ought to be watching.

4.0 p.m.

Mrs. TATE: Seeing that the Minister has brought forward this Amendment, would it not have been better to have done what many of us wished in the first place, that is, to do away with the definition "built-up area" altogether, and
simply have, where necessary, in a congested area, one sign fixing a speed limit suitable to that particular area? From the beginning the definition "built-up area" has caused nothing but confusion, and I would suggest—

The CHAIRMAN: We have got beyond the question of the built-up area.

Mrs. TATE: I bow to your Ruling, Sir-Dennis.

4.1. p.m.

Mr. SUMMERSBY: The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) referred to the question of having signs indicating a lower speed limit—

Mr. STANLEY: Ample opportunity will be given to discuss that question when we get to the point on the Report stage.

Mr. SUMMERSBY: If we are really going to make it confusing to the motorist and wish to drive him mad, why not print a notice in some foreign language that the ordinary motorist cannot read?

4.2 p.m.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: This Amendment, I think, raises the whole question of restrictions to be placed on the motoring fraternity. Would it not be possible to make still further restrictions, as the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) said—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not using the right opportunity for his remarks. This particular Amendment does not deal with restrictions, but only with the signs to be put up where those restrictions are ordered.

Sir C. OMAN: I must apologise to the Committee, but the greater part of the speeches which have been made were not about signs.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. ALED ROBERTS: May I ask the Minister if he will clear up one or two points? I have a distinct recollection of making a suggestion in Committee up-stairs during the discussion on sign posts and the definition of "built-up area," and I remember that the Minister turned down the suggestion I made, because he said it would be very confusing if you used too many signs. He gave the classic example of the Great West Road, where there is a broad road which might, pos-
sibly, be taken out of the limit area and the old road running by the side, which would be subject to the limit. Nothing is said in the Minister's Amendment as to what is to happen if a motorist comes on to a road which has been taken out of the speed limit area. It only says that signs are to be put up to indicate the beginning of a road in a built-up area, and where it ceases. It does not say anything about a road which joins a controlled road somewhere between the beginning and the end. I should like to know what the hon. Gentleman has in his mind to deal with that point.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: There is one question about which I am not quite clear, and that is where, under the Amendment, the motorist need not take any notice at all of the street lamps but may solely observe the special signs which are proposed?

4.6 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: If I may reply to the last question first, the position—and it is one which I made perfectly clear in Committee when I promised that I would introduce this Amendment—is that the legal liability remains unchanged. The legal liability is still governed by the fact that where a system of street lighting exists, a speed limit is in force. What I am now proposing to do in all cases where confusion is likely to occur is to take powers to erect, for the guidance of motorists at the beginning of a speed limit area, a sign which will show that a speed limit is in force, and my answer to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. A. Roberts) is what I have just said. It will not be possible now for the motorist, when he gets into the middle of London, to say, "I did not know I was in a built-up area," because, by using a number of by-lanes entering London, he finds no sign showing that the speed limit is in force. I think that if my hon. Friend had listened to the extract which I read from a letter to the local authorities, he would realise that I had in my mind the position of the man who enters from a side road, and that it will be an obligation to put up a sign in order that the motorist may be aware of the fact that the speed limit is in force.
The only other question, I think, that I was asked, was as to the position under Section 46 of the Act of 1930. That of
course, is entirely unchanged by this Bill. The Section still remains in force. It will still be open to the local authority to make an application, if it so desires, for a special speed limit, and it will still be open to the Minister of Transport, if he thinks fit, to grant it. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend there is no intention of putting up the same sign to tell the motorist in one place that he must not exceed 30 miles an hour, and at another place that he must not exceed 10 miles an hour.

Sir W. BRASS: Assuming that someone came into the London area by a side lane, as the Minister described it, and was not, in fact, in the 30-mile limit, what would happen to him there? He would not know that he was in an area exempted from a speed limit, because he would see the street lamps.

Mr. STANLEY: I did not deal with that point, because I made it plain or. Second Reading, and several times since, and it is actually a point which is raised by a subsequent Amendment in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend. The position which I made very plain is that in the de-restricted areas, where a sign will be placed upon the lamps, which, after all, will show that it is not subject to the speed limit, these signs will not only be placed at the beginning and end of an area, but at regular intervals along the whole area.

Mr. MABANE: Will the Minister answer the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend?

Mr. STANLEY: It was a question about the removing of signs. I have already that power under the Road Traffic Act, 1930.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. REMER: What the hon. Gentleman has just said has filled me with a great deal of misgiving. My object in rising is to ask one question. The Minister has referred to a motorist coming from a by-lane on to a lit-up area. May I ask him whether in such circumstances there is to be no sign on that by-lane similar to the sign on a main road with a speed limit? Will there be any sign to give a motorist, say, a stranger, entering London any guidance that he is approaching a speed limit?

Mr. STANLEY: My answer to that is that a stranger to London is unlikely to approach London by an unclassified road. The whole point I shall discuss with local authorities with the object of ensuring that any road likely to be used by motorists who are strangers to a district shall have this sign upon them.

Mr. PIKE: Does this apply to other big towns?

4.12 p.m.

Sir W. BRASS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after "maintain," to insert "prescribed."
The object of this Amendment to the proposed Amendment will, I think, be clear to the Committee. It is in order that before my hon. Friend puts up particular types of signs, they should be prescribed signs, and that the House of Commons should have an opportunity, if necessary, of discussing the sort of signs which should or should not be used We had a discussion last night on the question of pedestrian crossing places, and that was due to the fact that the Minister had to place on the Table of the House the Regulations as to crossing places. I think that the House should also have the opportunity of knowing the sort of signs which are to be put up by the Minister. It is very important that these signs should be uniform, land that we should not have in this country signs like other signs in foreign countries which may mean something entirely different from what we intend them to mean here. Therefore, I ask the Minister whether he could not accept this Amendment to his Amendment, and agree that the design of the signs should be laid on the Table for discussion when he brings in the Regulations.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I am afraid that, until my hon. and gallant Friend moved his Amendment, I did not quite appreciate the object he had in mind. I thought that all he wanted to ensure was that signs erected by the local authority would proceed by prior sanction. I have already that power under another Act. I appreciate the point he has made, however, but I hope that he will not press me to accept the Amendment now. I agree that a certain amount of publicity given to this matter may, in some, instances,
be extremely valuable, and I will certainly between now and the stage in another place look into the matter, now that I know the exact point he has in mind, and will do my best to meet it.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I should like to raise a point on the Amendment to the Minister's Amendment—

The CHAIRMAN;: We are not discussing the Minister's Amendment, but the Amendment to the Amendment.

Mr. McENTEE: That is exactly what I said.

The CHAIRMAN: That might have been what the hon. Member meant, but I understood him to say the Minister's Amendment. We are discussing the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass).

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I am sitting in front of the hon. Member, and what he said was, "on the Amendment to the Minister's Amendment."

The CHAIRMAN: That is all right as long as the hon. Member knows what I mean.

Mr. McENTEE: Sometimes a person not playing the game sees the game best. I do not claim to be a motorist. I tried to drive on one occasion and knocked a tree down. As one who desires to be a motorist I keep my eyes open to see what it is the motorist has to observe on the roads. The thing that strikes me is the absence of similarity in the signs all over the country and the different heights at which they are placed. I notice also that in many cases, owing to trees and other obstructions, it is impossible to see the signs properly. I want to ask the Minister to see that these signs are similar in every district instead of having all kinds of signs to indicate the same thing. If that were done it would save many casualties.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I do not think that the Amendment to the proposed Amendment would have very much bearing on that question, but I fully realise the importance of the hon. Member's point. As a matter of fact, as the result of a committee which reported last year and regulations which I issued in consequence, uniformity of signs is ensured
in future throughout the country. The signs erected under these powers will be no exception to the uniformity.

Sir W. BRASS: In view of the undertaking which the Minister has been so kind as to give, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.18 p.m.

Commander MARSDEN: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after "signs," to insert:
and to place traffic signs on the surface of the carriage way.
The Minister has been kind enough to say he has sympathetically considered this proposal and opinions have already been expressed in the House as to signs generally, so that I feel I have a pretty good Amendment. These words are very few, but they may revolutionise the whole of this question. The place for the eyes of the motorist is on the surface of the road, and he cannot fail to see signs placed there. If he is stopped by a policeman, he cannot give any possible excuse that he has not seen them. I am a practical motorist, which I understand the Minister is not. I drive home every day from the House; I am continually on the road, and I know that there is nothing on the road which will miss me in the shape of some sign on the carriageway. I emphasise "carriageway" because "road" means in the legal sense the whole space from side to side, from hedge to hedge, including the pavement. Something on the carriageway means something on the actual surface of the road, as generally understood by the layman. There need not be an enormous number or variety of signs. They might be a few which every motorist who is competent to pass the test which will be imposed should be able to distinguish immediately. They should be signs to which his mind and eye would instantly react as he sees them. These are the feelings of everyone who drives a car. Less and less do we wish to take our eyes off the road. We want to keep them on the road. There are many ramifications of this question, and I know many hon. Members cleverer than I am who can probably think of some more. My first draft of the Amendment was to
make it compulsory to have these road signs continually on the road where a speed limit was in force, but I am glad to see that the Minister in his Amendment apparently has this power if he wishes to enforce it. There are the words:
such positions as may be requisite in order to give effect to general or other directions given by the Minister.
"As requisite" are as handy a couple of words as I have ever met, and they can be twisted to suit anything. There are in the whole country only 50,000 miles of motoring roads, and some sign could be given to apply to the whole of the roads of the country. We are not asking that. We are asking that some signs should be given for sections of the roads over which there is a speed limit. We may have different signs for 30 miles, 20 miles, or 15 miles, but the point is that when the motorist gets to that point in the road and sees markings in the carriageway he knows where he is, and there is no excuse if he does not obey them. They may be used also in other places. They may be used at the approaches of cross roads, or near isolated dwellings where it was advisable for the careful motorist to ease down. They might also be used as temporary measures where there is a gathering of people and where the police would like some restriction of speed; and they could be eliminated next day after the meeting had taken place.
There is no end to the uses to which these signs could be put, and they could be of paint or metal, and I understand there is now a rubber sign which can be put in the road. On the West Road they are always laboriously struggling along with a wooden stencil which they move from one spot to the other. I am sure it must be only a question of time before something is invented to mark the roads in the way that tennis courts are marked, by which a motor cycle or tri-car could go along and put down mile after mile of these markings without any delay. At present we cannot go along the West Road without being stopped somewhere. I do not say that these signs should be overdone. I hope the question of cost will not deter the Minister from adopting such signs as I suggest. The motorists will pay far less for their cars than ever before
in Horse-power Tax as a result of the Budget, and I do not think anyone would grudge giving some of that back for this purpose.
The sole purpose for which this Bill is introduced is to save human life. Seven thousand people are killed and 200,000 injured every year, and I hope that no hon. Member will object to auy such suggestion as is made on the question of cost. When I was a midshipman, and we went in for our seamanship examination, the chances of passing depended on your knowing of the mentality of the board. One captain always used to ask the question, "What is the most valuable thing on a ship?" If you did not answer that correctly you could not pass. The answer was "Human life." I hope that the Minister will view my suggestion from the same point of view. The markings as proposed in the Bill can be anything the Minister cares to make them. If the words of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment are put in it will not be left to the Minister to try a slight experiment or anything of that kind. It will be an instruction from this House that it shall be done. It will be an instruction that it shall be done at all places where a speed limit is in force.

4.26 p.m.

Sir G. FOX: I should like to support the Amendment to the Amendment. We have all seen the new signs which have been put on the roads in London for pedestrian crossings, and we realise how very easy it is to see them. Whether they are in the right places or not is another question, but we know when we get up to them that they are signs and it is quite easy to understand them. If we could have signs on the carriageways in the villages throughout the country they would be easy for the motorist and better than disfiguring pretty villages with ugly signposts. On the big by-passes and arterial roads where there is a lot of traffic, perhaps two or three deep, many motorists who are overtaking or in the centre of the road cannot see signposts on the sides of the road. If the signs were on the carriageway all motorists could see them and understand exactly what they mean. I hope the Minister will give this suggestion careful consideration when he comes to make the necessary regulations.

4.28 p.m.

Captain GUNSTON: I hope the Minister will not accept the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, because there is a real danger, if the Minister follows the advice of my hon. Friends, of turning motoring into a sort of game of chess. With all these devices on our roads motoring will be made too complicated, and I can hardly imagine my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) will approve of this Amendment after his speech last night, when he asked the Minister to do away with some of the curious patterns he is marking on the streets of London. Surely the right thing to do is to have the signs painted on the road at the beginning and the end of the speed limit. The Amendment to the Amendment would mean a large number of road markings and the motorists would be so accustomed to seeing them that they would not lock out for the other road markings such as those giving directions for going to the left or the right. The most reasonable thing is to leave it to the local authorities to put on the road surface a marking at the beginning and end of the speed limit area so as not to confuse the motorist With too many signs. If we are to have our roads painted with all sorts of signs they will have no effect at all.

4.30 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend the Friend the Member for Thornbury (Captain Gunston) plays chess, but if he does I should think he will have quite a good chance of doing so with all these signs on the roadway. I think they are an excellent form of safeguarding the rights of pedestrians; but I cannot say anything further about that. On the subject of my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment, it is desirable that we should enable motorists to keep the habit of glueing their eyes on the roads. Already the London motorist is trained to do that by the new pedestrian crossings, and it would be a very good thing to extend that habit to motorists elsewhere by having the signs actually on the road surface. The Minister told us that he was in correspondence with some of the bodies representing motorists. I have not been in official correspondence with them, because they would not take a great deal of notice of me, but recently I had the
opportunity of consulting a high official of the Automobile Association, who informed me that the association are of the opinion that not only should signs of a signpost type be put at the roadside, but that there should also be these definite marks on the roadway itself, in order to give the motorist that added assistance. As to the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thornbury that this would entail an almost endless repetition of these signs on the road that, in my opinion, would not be valueless, because there may be side roads coming at intervals into the main road and, therefore, these reminders will be a definite advantage.

Captain GUNSTON: The point I was trying to make was that endless repetitions might make the motorist say, "Oh, it is only another sign that I am in a lighted area," and not look out for the other signs.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: On that I would only say that perhaps some of the trouble in the motoring world in the past has arisen from the fact that there have not been sufficient reminders, in the form of police officers stationed along the roads, and as it would be impracticable to have an innumerable number of them, I think that when the motorist sees the signs repeated he will think perhaps of what will then be the Road Traffic Act. I hope the Minister will give every possible consideration to my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment and accept it.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I rather hope the Committee will not allow this discussion to degenerate into what might become an interminable and indefinite argument as to the respective value of signs upon the road and at the side of the road, and I have, therefore, risen to try to bring the Committee back to the actual point of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. As an Amendment it does not mean anything at all. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that it is a very good Amendment, but its practical effect is nil. It would only put on the local authority the duty to put down these traffic signs on the road if I directed that they should do so, and as a matter of fact duties are already placed upon them by the words which are used in my
Amendment. I think the communication which I have sent to the local authorities will show that I have already appreciated the possible advantage of markings of this kind, and I am asking the advice of representative organisations, but I do not think that motoring opinion is anything like so unanimous on this point as my hon. and gallant Friend would lead the House to believe. I almost thought there would be blows when my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox) got up from the side of the hon. and gallant Member who has been his bed-fellow throughout this discussion and argued that nothing was easier than for a motorist to see pedestrians crossing the white lines; but I had to sit up until after 12 o'clock last night for the express purpose of being told by another hon. Member who speaks for motorists that they could not be seen at all. My only desire is that the signs we put up as a guidance to motorists shall be the best possible for the purpose. Without being the practical motorist that my hon. and gallant Friend is I start with a bias rather in favour of these signs on the road, because they seem to me to be extremely easy to distinguish, and I can tell the House that I already have sufficient powers to include them among the signs. My only desire is finally to choose those signs which the local authorities and motorists themselves believe will most usefully serve the purpose.

4.36 p.m.

Sir W. BRASS: In view of the fact that my hon. Friend has seen fit to bring me into the argument by reference to what was done last night I should like to explain that what I was trying to do then was to show that although these lines on the road are visible when the motorist gets quite close to them they are not visible at a considerable distance if they are merely painted on the road. I rather disagree with my hon. and gallant Friend who has moved this Amendment to the proposed Amendment. The motorist of the future will have to spend about 33 per cent. of the time on a journey in looking for street lamps—either standards or those attached to telegraph poles and so on—and I think the signs which are to take the place of some of these street lamps should also be on the side of the road, to which his eyes
will be glued, rather than on the road surface where he at present looks, because it is to the side of the road that he will have to look in future if he is to avoid being caught in police traps.

4.37 p.m.

Sir C. OMAN: May I be allowed to point out, both to the Minister and to the proposer and seconder of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment the danger that may result if a fall of snow or a muddy day makes these signs invisible. If the motorist were to rely on them in those circumstances he might come to grief.

Sir G. FOX: I would point out in reply that when it is snowing no motorist could drive at a speed exceeding 30 miles an hour without being a danger to the public.

Commander MARSDEN: After the explanation given by the Minister I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.40 p.m.

Sir W. BRASS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 5, to leave out from "the," to "and," in line 7, and to insert:
entrance to and exit from a length of road subject to a speed limit under this Act and by means of such traffic signs placed not more than two hundred yards apart as to a length of road where a direction is in force under Sub-sections (4) and (5) of this Section.
If hon. Members will look at my Amendment and the Minister's Amendment they will see what the effect of including my Amendment would be. I will read out the words of the Minister's Amendment as they would be if he accepts my Amendment. His Amendment would then read:
To erect and maintain traffic signs in such positions as may be requisite in order to give effect to general or other directions given by the Minister for the purpose of securing that adequate guidance is given to drivers of motor vehicles as to the entrance to and exit from a length of road subject to a speed limit under this Act and by means of such traffic signs placed not more than two hundred yards apart as to a length of road where a direction is in force under Sub-sections (4) and (5) of this Section.
Sub-sections (4) and (5) deal with the case where a direction is being given either that a certain portion of road is to he included in a speed limit or a certain
portion of road is to be excluded from a speed limit. Sub-section (4) says that a direction that a length of road shall be deemed not to be a road in a built-up area may be given by the local authority by means of on Order, and Sub-section (5) says that if the Minister is satisfied that the local authority have failed in that respect he may make an Order giving a direction. The Minister has said that he is willing to agree that at the entrance to all so-called built-up areas—which in a large number of cases are not really built-up areas at all but merely lit-up area—there shall be a notice of some kind to indicate to the motorist that he is entering an area which is a speed limit area. The object of my Amendment is to secure that not only shall there be these signs at the beginning and the end of each area but that they shall be at distances of not more than 200 yards apart, like the street lamps for which he has provided. He has put into the Bill a provision that in the system of street lighting the lamps are to be at a distance of not more than 200 yards apart, and I have copied the 200 yards from that provision. What I want to ensure is that in an area, for instance, a long village, where there is no system of street lighting at all, not only shall there be indications that it is a speed limit area at the entrance to and the exit from the village but that there shall also be, at intervals of 200 yards, indications that it is a speed limit area.
I am not asking the Minister to do this in areas which are street lit. Obviously, it would be stupid to do it all over London. The street with lamps is to be an indication of a speed limit area, and one could not expect the Minister to put up at intervals of 200 yards all over London, where there are street lamps in existence, signs to show that a 30-mile speed limit was in operation. My Amendment is confined to the portions of a road which are not inside a speed limit area as described in Clause 1. Take, for instance, the Great West Road. That road, I understood from what was said in the Committee stage, may possibly be decontrolled. Some of the by-pass roads out of London may be decontrolled altogether. Consequently, there would be no speed limit on those by-pass roads, although they have a system of street lighting along them. I suggest that at
intervals of 200 yards—I am not wedded to 200 yards—certainly at reasonable intervals, there is an indication to the motorist that the lamp is not a lamp in the sense that it is to indicate that the driver must put his foot on the brake and get down to 30 miles an hour. It is important that the motorist should have every possible opportunity of knowing what is his position on the road. My hon. Friend the Minister is equally anxious with me that there should be no ambiguity or misunderstanding and that when a motorist enters into a speed limit area he should at once know that he is in a speed limit area, either by seeing street lamps or by some other sign. For that reason, I would ask my hon. Friend to consider the Amendment in all sincerity, because it is a constructive one and is simply put down with the object of endeavouring to make it as clear as possible to the driver that he is or is not in a speed limit area, where a direction has been given by the Minister which alters the lighting system of direction.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I am in general sympathy with a great deal of what my hon. and gallant Friend has said and I hope that when he has heard my reply he will not think it necessary to press the Amendment. These Amendments, which tie the Minister down very tightly on a matter of this kind, are undesirable. The hon. and gallant Member says that his Amendment is confined to an excluded area. With regard to an excluded area, an area where there are street lights but where the speed limit will not be enforced, it will be material if I quote another paragraph from the letter that I wrote to the highway authorities:
It is also contemplated that the sign shown in diagram (ii) shall be erected upon every alternate lamp post along any restricted road.
I think my hon. and gallant Friend will see that that provision goes somewhat to meet his point of view. In the other case of a place where there are no lights and the speed limit will be enforced, I think it would be impracticable to lay it down that every 200 yards there must be a notice. There would clearly be a number of cases where that would be quite unnecessary. It would be an absurd situation if a road through a village was 201 yards long; that you had to erect a
second sign showing that the speed limit was still operative, a yard before you came out of the speed limit. I do, however, appreciate that there may be cases where it may be desirable to give that sort of repeat sign, where the motorist may have missed the original sign. I will certainly give further consideration to the possibility of repeat signs of that nature, although, if we are to do that, I do not see the logical reason for doing it only in the areas where directions are given. However, I will consider the whole question and the necessity under special circumstances of giving repeat signs for the guidance of motorists.

Sir W. BRASS: In view of the statement and the undertaking which the Minister has been kind enough to give, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.51 p.m.

Sir W. BRASS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 19, to leave out, "or for the attachment of reflectors thereto,"
There is one point which I should like to impress on the Minister. At the end of his Amendment it is provided that the Minister shall have power to
make regulations providing for the illumination during the hours of darkness, during which a speed limit is to be observed under this Section that traffic signs to be erected, or for the attachment of reflectors thereto.
My point is, that I do not think that a reflector is really efficient unless it is always on the correct side of the road. It is possible to put a reflector on a system of street lighting which is on the off side of the road. The system of street lighting does not always go across the road as it does in London, on country roads one often finds that all the lamps are on one side of the road and not dotted from one side to the other. I think it would be better if the Minister would consider illuminating the signs at night instead of using reflectors. It ought not to be very difficult to illuminate the sign by attaching it to the system-of street lighting. When street lighting is in existence the speed limit comes into operation, except in cases where there is a direction. In places where there is a direction, perhaps the Minister
would see that the sign is on the correct side of the road, always on the near side, so that it is plainly visible. Certainly where a system of street lighting exists it would be very much better to have the signs illuminated at night, instead of using reflectors.

Sir G. FOX: I think this question emphasises the argument that I have put before in favour of having the sign on the carriageway. I think the difficulty would be got over if the marking were put on the carriageway.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I think my hon. and gallant Friend realises that the effect of the Amendment would be to deprive me of the possibility of using reflectors in any circumstances. I am sure the Committee as a whole will agree that there are many cases in which a reflector is a perfectly adequate substitute for a light, and the only practicable one possible in a village. Under my Amendment I shall have power to prescribe either. I will certainly give consideration to the desirability in certain cases of insisting upon direct lighting and in other cases of permitting the use of a reflector.

Sir W. BRASS: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move in page 3, line 26, to leave out from "borough" to the first "the," in line 30, and to insert:
in a non-county borough possessing a separate police force or having a population, according to the last census, for the time being of over twenty thousand, and in an urban district having such a population as aforesaid.
This is purely a drafting Amendment necessitated by the fact that the Local Government Act 1933, has come into force since the Clause passed through Committee, and the expression "urban district" has now ceased to include a non-county borough. It was agreed in Committee that urban districts having a population of over 20,000, and non-county boroughs of the same population, or possessing their own police force, should be put on the same level. This Amendment restores the position.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. ALED ROBERTS: On a point of Order. I wanted to say something on this Amendment. I tried to catch your eye before the Question was put.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member is too late. He did not succeed in catching my eye. He only drew my attention to the fact that he was on his feet after I had collected the voices. The Amendment has now been disposed of.

CLAUSE 15.—(Foot-passenger crossings.)

Amendments made: In page 14, line 2, after "works," insert:
(including the placing, erection, maintenance, alteration, and removal of marks and traffic signs).
In line 4, leave out "scheme as approved," and insert:
provisions of the scheme for the time being in force or with the indication thereof in accordance with the regulations having effect as respects the crossings."—[Mr. Stanley.]

CLAUSE 21.—(Power of county councils to light roads.)

Amendment made: In page 16, line 19, leave out from the second "illuminated," to "and," in line 21, and insert:
enter into and carry into effect an agreement for the supply for that purpose of gas, electricity, or other means of illumination with the road lighting authority, or with any other authority or person having power in that behalf."—[Mr. Stanley.]

5.0 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, in page 16, line 27, at the end, to add:
(2) Before exercising the power conferred on them by this section a county council shall give notice to the road lighting authority specifying the road, or part of a road, which in the opinion of the county council should be illuminated or better illuminated with any particular requirement in that behalf which in their opinion ought to be satisfied, and shall not exercise the said power unless the road lighting authority have at the expiration of a reasonable time after receipt of the notice, failed to provide such illumination or better illumination as is requisite for the adequate lighting of the road or part of a road, or to comply with any reasonable requirement of the county council in that behalf.
Any question arising under this subsection as to what lighting is adequate, or as to what length of time is reasonable, or as to whether any requirement is reasonable, shall be determined by the Minister.
(3) Subject as hereinafter provided, all expenses incurred by the council of a county under this section shall be expenses for general county purposes.
Provided that if a road lighting authority provide lighting for the county roads within their area and have not failed in any year to comply with a notice given under the last foregoing sub-section the council of the county shall pay to the road lighting authority, if that authority so request, the amount raised by the council of the county in that area in respect of expenses incurred by them under this section in that year.
(4) In this section the expression "road lighting authority" means, as respects any county road or part thereof, the council or meeting on whom any of the powers referred to in sub-section (1) of this section are conferred as respects that road or that part thereof.
During the Committee stage I accepted a new Clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), which gave the county councils powers in certain circumstances to carry out lighting works which they thought were not being satisfactorily carried out by the lighting authority. I warned my hon. Friend at the time that it would probably be necessary to make an Amendment in order to safeguard the rights of other local authorities. Since the Committee stage, as a result of a conference which I held with the representatives of all the local authorities, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Urban District Councils Association and the Rural District Councils Association, and the County Councils Association, agreement has been reached upon the Amendment I now move, which is thought by those respective associations fully to safeguard the rights of their constituent members.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: Do I understand, from what the Minister has said, that the urban district authorities were consulted as well as the County Councils Association, and that they are all satisfied?

Mr. STANLEY: Yes.

Mr. LAWSON: When was that arrangement arrived at? I have had complaints, a resolution and a circular, only this morning.

Mr. STANLEY: My hon. Friend no doubt received the complaint from a particular urban authority. He will realise that there must be a certain time lag. I myself saw the gentlemen concerned on Monday or Tuesday, and the small committee only reached final agreement late last night. There would, therefore, not have been time for individual local authorities to know.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: On behalf of the Non-County Boroughs Association I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the manner in which he has met the natural apprehension of the authorities concerned. Under the original Bill the non-county boroughs and the urban district councils feared that they were in danger of having to pay twice over for additional lighting. They have been delivered from that fear by this Amendment.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. JAMES REID: I would like to know whether this Clause is intended to apply to Scotland. I have heard nothing from any local authority in Scotland as to whether it is for the Clause or against it. On the drafting the Clause has no application to Scotland at all, because it employs entirely English phraseology. Of course the Scottish courts would have to try to translate it unless there is a special Sub-section inserted to the effect that the Clause is not to apply to Scotland. I would like, first of all, to be told whether it is intended that the Clause shall apply to Scotland. If it is not intended to apply, I should like an assurance that that will be put down in black and white. If it is to apply, I would like to know whether any representations have been received from Scottish local authorities, or whether indeed they have ever been told that this Clause has been inserted in the Bill.

Mr. STANLEY: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for raising the point. It was intended that the Clause should apply to Scotland, and it would have been necessary at some sub sequent stage to put down an adaptation Clause to carry that into effect. It was difficult to do so before I had reached the agreement to which I have referred. If my hon. Friend feels that there is any danger that the Scottish authorities do not know of this, and therefore have not had a chance of expressing their opinion, I will certainly take steps immediately to bring the matter to their attention and ask their views upon it before I proceed any further.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended (in the Standing Committee) and on re-committal considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision for charge for careless driving on hearing of charge for reckless or dangerous driving.)

(1) Where a person is charged before a court of summary jurisdiction with an offence under Section eleven of the principal Act (which relates to reckless or dangerous driving) and the court is of the opinion that the offence is not proved, then, at any time during the hearing or immediately thereafter, the court may, without prejudice to any other powers possessed by the court, direct or allow a charge for an offence under Section twelve of the principal Act (which relates to careless driving) to be preferred forthwith against the defendant and may thereupon proceed with that charge, so however that he or his solicitor or counsel shall be informed of the new charge and be given an opportunity, whether by way of cross-examining any witness whose evidence has already been given against the defendant or otherwise, of answering the new charge, and the court shall, if it considers that the defendant is prejudiced in his defence by reason of the new charge being so preferred, adjourn the hearing.

(2) A defendant in whose case the requirements of Section twenty-one of the principal Act (which relates to notice of prosecutions) have been satisfied, or do not apply, as respects the alleged offence under Section eleven of the principal Act, may be convicted on a charge preferred under the foregoing Sub-section, notwithstanding that those requirements have not been satisfied as respects the alleged offence under Section twelve of the principal Act.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.9 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I think I am right in saying that this new Clause embodies a suggestion which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk (Mr. Turton). He is, unfortunately, unable to be here to-day, but I would like to express our gratitude to him for raising the point, which is a point to be met. The Clause deals with the position where a person is charged before a court of summary jurisdiction with an offence under Section 11 of the principal Act, which is the offence of dangerous driving. The Clause enables the court, if that offence is not proved, subject to all proper safeguards to direct that the person may be charged with the offence of careless driving under Section 12. Under the law at present it is true that it is possible to issue alternative summonses
in the first instance, but certain courts rather object to that procedure on the ground that it may confuse, if not the court, the accused person, as to what is actually the charge which has to be met. Therefore in certain cases the prosecution are faced with the dilemma that possibly they think a more serious charge ought to be made. If the accused is acquitted on that charge, although perhaps plainly guilty of careless driving, the charge could not be brought home unless there was the somewhat oppressive procedure of issuing a further summons and bringing him and all the witnesses back again to the court at some later date.
To meet that difficulty this new Clause has been moved. It provides that if the court think proper to direct or allow the lesser charge, the accused person or his solicitor or counsel shall be informed and be given an opportunity, whether by way of cross-examining any witnesses whose evidence has already been given against the defendant, or otherwise, of answering the new charge, and if there is any chance of his being prejudiced by the new charge being brought forward at this time the hearing shall be adjourned. The second Sub-section of the new Clause I need not describe in detail. The House can accept it from me that it is purely consequential, having regard to Section 21 of the principal Act, which deals with notices having to be given.

5.12 p.m.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: This new Clause will very greatly facilitate the working of the courts on these particular offences. The offences of driving to the danger of the public and driving carelessly shade off one into the other. Hitherto it has been necessary to issue two summonses. The learned Solicitor-General talked of alternative summonses, but they were two separate charges and two separate summonses had to be issued. That meant extra expense. In the Committee stage the hon. Member for Thirsk (Mr. Turton) put down an Amendment that on a charge of driving to the danger of the public the court should be empowered to convict for the lesser offence. There was practical difficulty in that Amendment. I am very glad at the acceptance of my hon. Friend's proposal by the Home Office.
It will facilitate the trial of these cases and save expense.

5.14 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I am not a lawyer and it is a little difficult for me to speak upon this particular point. I thank the learned Solicitor-General for explaining the new Clause very clearly. It seems to be somewhat penal, however. I do not know whether he can quote any other offence in the courts where, after an accusation fails, it is possible to shift back to some minor charge. There may be some other offences, and if so perhaps he will let me know. It seems to me that this is one of the usual attempts to convict the motorist in preference to anyone else. I am, of course, not unfavourable to people being convicted more and more for dangerous driving. That is something I have insisted on throughout the Committee stage. I think that one of our troubles has been that there have not been enough convictions for dangerous driving, irrespective of high speed limits. The most dangerous driving is often in the low speed areas. If we fail on the charge of dangerous driving, we now propose to shift to careless driving, and if we fail on that, we shift to excessive speed, and finally we get the man for going over 30 miles an hour. I do not see why we should charge him with going over 30 miles an hour in the first instance. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will answer my first point as to whether this occurs in other forms of the law.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: The introduction of this Clause will certainly facilitate the administration of the Road Traffic Act. Anyone who has had to advise in taking proceedings under that Act has always felt that it would be better if he could decide whether the summons was to be for dangerous driving or for careless driving. It is very difficult, because one offence shades into the other. When the Royal Commission discussed this matter, they came to the conclusion that you could not differentiate between the two, and that careless driving was probably the equivalent of dangerous driving. The legislature thought better, and not accepting the recommendation of the Commission made the two offences of dangerous driving and
careless driving. Almost invariably, where a summons has to be issued in respect of an offence which does not appear to be one or the other, the police or their legal advisers have to issue two summonses. What happens? As soon as you get before the court, you have to decide which summons shall be taken. In some cases the defendant or his legal representative states that he is quite prepared that the magistrate should consider the two summonses together and should then decide of which offence the defendant is guilty. In many cases you are faced with a dilemma; if you take the summons for dangerous driving first and it is dismissed, you may have to start on a new hearing for careless driving.
The provision in the proposed new Clause will certainly be of great help in that connection. In some cases it will not be necessary to resort to the procedure which is outlined in the Clause. The defendant or his legal adviser, as soon as he is informed by the court that there will be no ground for convicting for dangerous driving, will agree that the court should take the evidence and come to a decision as to whether an offence has been committed under Section 12 of the Act. The introduction of the Clause will greatly facilitate the working of the Road Traffic Act, so far as dangerous driving is concerned.

5.20 p.m.

Major LLEWELLIN: In answer to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) may I say that there are numerous instances in which a man accused of a greater charge can be convicted on a lesser charge. For instance, there is the charge of intent to do grievous bodily harm, as an alternative to which an accused can be convicted, if necessary, of unlawful wounding, or merely of common assault. In the case of breaking and entering into a dwelling-house at night and stealing therefrom, an accused can be convicted not only of that but of breaking into a dwelling-house by day, or he can be convicted of stealing in a dwelling-house, or of simple larceny. There are large numbers of cases of that sort in a criminal court where a man accused of a greater charge can be convicted of a lesser charge.

Sir W. BRASS: Are those alternative cases at the time, or are they separate charges after the previous one has been dismissed?

Major LLEWELLIN: The man is indicted on the graver charge, and the court has power to convict on the lesser charge.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not dealing with cases before Quarter Sessions or Assizes? The point here is as to cases before a court of summary jurisdiction where you have to be particularly careful and not duplicate your charges.

Major LLEWELLIN: I quite appreciate that point, but I understood that the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey asked whether there were any other instances in the criminal law of this country where a man could be put in jeopardy on two charges at the same time, and I was giving some instances. It is true that those I gave applied only to indictable offences, but there are many more in that category that one could recite.
I support the Clause because I think it will save time and prevent additional trials when you can convict on the lesser charge without having to hear all the evidence a second time. If a man gets off the charge of dangerous driving, a fresh summons has now to be issued on a charge of careless driving, and the whole thing is heard over again, which is not good for the time of the court or in the best interests of the defendant. The only thing I would urge upon the Home Secretary is that he should discourage the police, if he can, when they get these additional powers of alternative conviction, from proceeding on the heavier charge in cases in which before they would have proceeded only on the lighter charge. That is the only danger. The police may say in all cases, "We will start on the charge of dangerous driving, and then"—with the good old English compromise idea—"the magistrates will probably convict for careless driving." I hope that the procedure conferred by the Clause will not lead to that kind of thing. Somebody in this House ought to enter that caveat while the Clause is being passed.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: The argument adduced by the hon. and gallant Member for
Uxbridge (Major Llewellin) should be sufficient to induce the House to reject the proposed new Clause. It is important when summonses are issued to let a defendant know what are the charges against him. If he receives an additional summons for careless driving, he knows that he may be charged with that offence as well as with that of reckless or dangerous driving. He is put on his guard. Every person is not legally represented in the courts, and every person certainly would not know if a Clause of this description were in existence that he would be liable to be charged with the commission of the other offence in the event of the larger charge being unproved. It does not matter about advice given by the House. This would not carry very much weight. A Member of the House may urge that if this Clause is inserted the police should not take the graver charge when the lesser charge is the correct one to prefer, but I do not think that such a direction is going to help either the police officer or anyone who is likely to be prosecuted. The reason is very simple. A policeman may not know, at the time when he is charging an individual or when he is applying for a summons, what kind of charge he will be able to prove in the court. Consequently, instead of pressing the lesser one, he would take the graver one.
It is a very simple matter to issue two summonses, if necessary. They can be delivered at the same time, and when the person who is charged appears in Court, he knows what he is being charged with and he has an opportunity of answering the charge. If the prosecution are not sure of their facts, and are going to rely upon something which may come out in the case when it is in court, inevitably only the grave charge will be taken at first. The police will naturally rely upon the graver charge if they know that they may proceed later with the lesser charge of carelessness. This is a serious matter, particularly where the driving licence of a person is involved. The duty is incumbent upon the prosecution to decide whether they have a prima facie case in respect of dangerous or careless driving. In present circumstances, if the two summonses are not issued together, the summons can be issued for the lesser charge at the hearing, but the defendant is invariably given the option of deciding whether the case should be proceeded
with forthwith, or whsther he requires an adjournment in order that the case may be proceeded with at a later date. According to the Clause, the matter is left in the hands of the court. I do not say that courts as a rule are unreasonable, but I think it is reasonable to suppose that some courts are not infallible. It may be that the court before which a defendant is being tried wrongly feel that the time of the court should not be wasted, and that it is very much better in the intereests of the saving of time and of expenditure of money that the case should proceed forthwith, without having regard to the fact that the defendant is entitled to a fair opportunity of meeting the case. We ought to consider very carefully before we accept a departure of this description.
In present circumstances there is sufficient safeguard by enabling the court to issue two or three summonses, as the case may be, and calling upon the prosecution to decide beforehand which case it is proceeding with. In these circumstances, I hope that the Solicitor-General will not press for the inclusion of the Clause.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. STEVENSON: I should like to know whether the Scottish Law Officers have been consulted on the terms of this Clause. On perusal it appears to me to be contrary to our procedure in Scot land. We have a common practice there of charging a man with an alternative complaint, and, as far as I know, it is very seldom that any person is charged under Section 11 of the Road Traffic Act without there being at the same time an alternative charge of careless driving under the following Section. The de fendant knows that he has to meet both charges, and it is left to the court to decide whether he shall be convicted on either charge. In view of the existence of that procedure in Scotland, it seems to me to be unnecessary that the Clause should be made applicable to Scotland, particularly as it infringes—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I am not quite sure that the hon. and learned Member is right in discussing that question on the Motion that this proposed new Clause be read a Second time. There is at the end of the Bill a special Clause, namely, Clause 35 (Application to Scotland), and
I think it would be more proper to raise the question when we come to that Clause. It may be in order now just to ask the question whether the proposed new Clause applies to Scotland or not, or whether it requires any alteration or amendment.

Mr. STEVENSON: I was going to suggest that the Clause should not apply to Scotland. If you would rather that I deferred what I wanted to say until we come to the Clause dealing with the application of the Bill to Scotland, I am prepared to do so, but I thought it might be more convenient if I stated my objection now.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I want, as far as I can, to put the Debate in order for the convenience of the House. I think that perhaps the hon. and learned Member was right as regards raising the point as to the application of the Bill to Scotland, and, if that point is answered one way or the other, the question can be dealt with on the later Clause.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Normand): It is not intended that this Clause should be applicable to Scotland, for the reason which has been stated by the hon. and learned Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stevenson), and in another place an Amendment will be put down to deal with that point.

5.34 p.m.

Sir WALTER GREAVES - LORD: There is one question that I should like to raise on this Clause. Speaking from recollection, I think that a charge under Section 11 of the Road Traffic Act for dangerous driving is one in regard to which the defendant has the right of electing to go before a jury, whereas a charge under Section 12 is dealt with summarily. Suppose the position to be that a charge is levelled against a man under Section 11, that he elects to go for trial, and that the jury acquit him. Is the position then to be that a fresh charge—as it will be, since it will not necessarily follow that he has ever been in jeopardy on the charge of careless driving—will have to be made, and that fresh proceedings will have to be taken against him in a court of summary jurisdiction for careless driving? In order to safeguard him from the expense of two
trials, would it not be necessary to give the court the power, although finding him not guilty of dangerous driving, to find him, upon the same facts, guilty of careless driving? On the other hand, suppose the position to be that an information is laid under Section 11, and another information is laid under Section 12, and the man elects to go for trial under Section 11. What is then to happen to the other information? Is it to be sent back to the court of summary jurisdiction after he has been tried at quarter sessions, in order that the court of summary jurisdiction may then decide that, although he has been acquitted of dangerous and reckless driving, he is nevertheless guilty of careless driving. After all, there are not two sets of facts; the evidence will not be different, whatever the charge may be. The evidence is the same as to what actually occurred, and it may well be that evidence which it was thought at first would justify a charge of dangerous driving proves not to justify it, but an acquittal on that charge should not prevent the starting of proceedings for careless driving. The result of the law as it stands at present is that, if only one summons were issued, it would be for dangerous driving, and if he were acquitted on that charge, and the police saw fit, fresh proceedings altogether would have to be started on a new information, and the man would be put to all the expense of a second trial, possibly before another bench of magistrates. It would seem to be a convenient course that the court which tries the case and comes to the conclusion that the facts do not justify a charge of dangerous driving, but is perfectly clear on the facts that there are grounds for an inquiry as to whether there has been careless driving or not, should say then and there, with everyone present, "The other charge should, in our opinion, be preferred." Moreover, as against the present procedure, where there are alternatives on indictment, it seems to me to be a much more merciful course, because, where there are alternatives on indictment, the defence are not given the right of a second cross-examination and a second speech as to whether the man is guilty of the minor offence; it is all dealt with on the one occasion. A man is charged, say, with unlawful wounding, and the case goes to the jury on that charge, but
the jury are told by the judge, "Although you find him not guilty of unlawful wounding, you may find him guilty of a common tort." In these cases there is no such privilege as is given here, of special notice of the minor charge, and the special right to have the evidence over again and a second cross-examination. That is a luxury which has never been dreamt of before. On the same evidence a man may now be found guilty on alternative charges, one of which is greater and the other less; and certainly the new procedure now proposed will be a great advantage 60 the person accused rather than to the prosecution.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have to acquaint the House that a Messeage has been received from another place.

Orders of the Day — DEBTS CLEARING OFFICES AND IMPORT RESTRICTIONS BILL.

Message from the Lords: That they have agreed to Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Bill, with an Amendment.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendment be considered forthwith," put, and agreed to.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Lords Amendment considered accordingly.

SCHEDULE.—(Particular provisions which may be included in an Order made under this Act.)

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 29, after "imprisonment," insert "for six months."

5.42 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House will remember that, when this Bill was being considered in Committee, a point was raised with regard to certain words in the Schedule which enabled the Order to set out what punishments could he inflicted for its breach, and, after some debate, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved a form of words which I think found general acceptance. By an oversight, however, the form of words actually moved did not include the maximum
period of imprisonment in respect of a second offence. The maximum period of imprisonment for a first offence was three months, and it was intended to provide that the maximum period of imprisonment for a second offence should be six months. The Amendment which has been inserted in another place, and to which I now ask the House to agree, repairs that omission, and provides for a period of six months as the maximum period of imprisonment for a second offence.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ROAD TRAFFIC BILL.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision for charge for careless driving on hearing of charge for reckless or dangerous driving.)

Question again proposed, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

5.43 p.m.

Mr. McKEAG: At one stage I thought I should find myself in agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) when he suggested that the position might possibly be met by the court being given power to convict on the lesser offence. I agree with that course of action, but I object, as others have already objected, to this new departure in the procedure of a court of summary jurisdiction, because, if my recollection be correct, Section 12 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, was inserted specifically for the benefit of motorists, so that, when there was any doubt whatever as to the possibility of obtaining a conviction on a charge of dangerous driving, the procedure of a charge of careless driving would be available, and the motorist would not be subjected to a serious charge when actually his offence was perhaps due only to a momentary error of judgment, or was at any rate an offence of a comparatively trivial character.
The effect of the Clause is going to be very far-reaching when one has regard to the figures of the convictions for 1932. The convictions for driving recklessly or in a dangerous manner were 3,068, whereas the convictions for careless driving were no fewer than 15,542. We all object to the multiplicity of summonses that there has been since the Road Traffic Act, 1930. If this Clause be passed, the position of motorists will be infinitely
worse, because it will simply mean that, instead of issuing a summons for dangerous driving and an additional summons for careless driving in the hope that if they do not get the motorist on the swings they will get him on the roundabouts, whenever a motorist commits an offence for which there is the remotest possible chance of obtaining a conviction for dangerous driving, they will issue a summons on the more serious charge. I do not see that any time is going to be saved to the courts by a power of this sort being given to lay magistrates, and I hope enough has been said to induce the Minister to reconsider the matter and take the view that this is a power which ought not to be placed in the hands of courts of summary jurisdiction. It will also entirely negative the real object of inserting Section 12 in the Road Traffic Act, and will be very much to the detriment of motorists in general.

5.48 p.m.

Sir W. BRASS: I think that the Clause will lead to slackness among the police in giving evidence. They will not trouble to find out whether the driver has been really driving to the public danger or whether he has committed a minor offence. He will not have an opportunity of knowing what the summons is for, but will simply be summoned on the major offence. Sections 11 and 12 of the Road Traffic Act are absolutely and entirely different things. Section 11 is very serious indeed. It says that, if a person drives at a speed or in a manner dangerous to the public having regard to the nature, the conditions and the use of the road, he shall, on summary conviction, be fined not exceeding £50 or imprisoned for a term not exceeding four months. Later on it is suggested that he might be able to be convicted for something entirely different. Section 12 does not mention careless driving except in the margin. It says that, if a person drives a motor vehicle on the road without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other people, he shall be guilty of an offence. It was put in specifically by Mr. Morrison in order that people who had committed only minor offences could be brought before the court. It was never suggested that these two things should be alterna-
tive and that summonses should be issued for a serious offence and, that serious offence not being able to be proved, the person who had not been convicted of it could afterwards be prosecuted for a minor offence. I think it will lead to a great deal of slackness and a very large number of prosecutions for the major offence, which is a very serious matter indeed. For that reason, I hope that the Government will not press the Clause; if they do, I think we should divide against it.

Mr. REMER: My hon. and gallant Friend and I were on the Road Traffic Committee together and I should like to confirm what he has said. Mr. Morrison said, not once but many times, that the sole object of putting the Clause in was that the minor charge should be placed before the courts. The pledge given then is now being made into a far more serious thing, and is going to place a very serious obligation upon motorists.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: The purpose of the Clause is to avoid additional expense and, perhaps, unnecessary delay but it is far more important that we should not sacrifice the interests of justice. It is a smaller matter that two summonses to be issued and that delay should take place than that the motorist should suffer injustice.

5.54 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I should certainly agree with the proposition that the interests of justice should not be outweighed by the interests of expense and, if I thought there was the slightest chance of any injustice to anyone under the Clause, I should not be moving it. When the point was raised in Committee, no one took any objection in principle to the Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Major Llewellin) was perfectly relevant in referring to the fact that in the case of proceedings by indictment a person accused of a more serious charge can be convicted on a lesser charge. That shows that this principle is enshrined in our law, and it has never been found to work injustice in cases of the most serious character. For instance, on an indictment for murder a jury can be directed to convict for manslaughter. It has been suggested that the police would recklessly lay
informations for charges of dangerous driving when the evidence did not justify it, but I ask the House to repudiate that suggestion. What motive could the police have for framing an indictment for murder on the ground that, if they did not succeed in that, they could succeed on the lower charge.

Sir W. BRASS: In that case there is at least a corpse.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I cited an extreme case. Let me take the case of grievous bodily wounding or indecent assault, in which case the person can be convicted of common assault. That gets rid of the body. In the area of serious crime this principle has never been found to work any injustice and I ask the House not to be influenced by the suggestion, for which there is no evidence, that the police are going to rely on this to bring wanton charges of dangerous driving. So far as the principles of justice are concerned, already by a subsequent summons a man could be brought a second time, at great personal inconvenience, before the court and charged under Section 12. With regard to the case put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) of a man charged under Section 11 electing to go to assizes, the position will be exactly as it is at present.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: Unless the court has the power to convict on the alternative charge the man, although acquitted at, the assizes, might be proceeded against on an information under Section 12 for careless driving, whereas if the court were given the alternative right to convict on the minor offence, though the major offence was charged, the man would be saved from the possibility of subsequent proceedings.

Mr. McKEAG: May I ask the learned Solicitor-General if there is a record of a single case in which a man acquitted of the more serious charge of dangerous driving has been subsequently charged with the lesser offence of driving carelessly?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am told that there are many. There must be many cases where it would be right that such a man should be charged, and where the evidence makes it quite clear that he
was guilty of careless driving. It may be that under the present procedure, owing to the fact that it would mean dragging the man back again and hearing all the evidence again, that that is not done, but it would be right, if on the evidence it was plain that the man had committed an offence, that he should not get off scot free, but should submit himself to such penalty as this House has said may be inflicted upon those who commit that offence.
Thas has rather put me off the answer to the point, as I understand it, put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwood. The point which he wanted me to consider was whether, in the event of a case under Section 11 coming to the High Court, that court ought not to have similar power to that already in the Bill. We will certainly consider that point and see whether the case which he puts can be met, and, if necessary, dealt with at a later stage. I hope that I have shown enough to relieve any apprehensions there may have been that this could work injustice. The principle is found in our law already in cases where, as in this case, the evidence must be the same. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) both referred to the differences between Section 11 and Section 12. I fully appreciate and accept what they say. It is fair to emphasise that Section 11 not only deals with dangerous but with reckless driving. The reason why we suggest to the House that a provision of this kind can inflict no injustice is that the evidence which goes to show that there has been reckless driving must be the same as the evidence which goes to show that there has been careless driving.

Mr. JANNER: Would the learned Solicitor-General tell us whether, according to this Clause, it will be possible, even after a defendant had been put into the witness-box and his evidence had been taken, and he had been cross-examined, whether counsel were present or not, for him to be charged immediately with the other offence and possibly not have an opportunity of obtaining counsel to assist him?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My hon. Friend must read the Clause. I think someone suggests that excessive safeguards
have been put in. The defendant has to be informed of the new charge and given an opportunity of cross-examining any witness whose evidence has already been given against the defendant or otherwise, and the court are given powers regarding an adjournment if the defendant is prejudiced in his defence by reason of the new charge. But, really, when we

get to realities and consider that here is evidence called on a charge of dangerous driving and that the only question is whether we can support a charge of careless driving, I suggest that the safeguards in the Bill are more than ample.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 31.

Division No. 308.]
AYES.
[6.5 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Edmondson, Major Sir James
Mabane, William


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Edwards, Charles
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Elmley, Viscount
McCorquodale, M. S.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Emmott Charles E. G. C.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Fremantle, Sir Francis
McEntee, Valentine L.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Ganzoni, Sir John
McKie, John Hamilton


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Magnay, Thomas


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Bernays, Robert
Goff, Sir Park
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Goldie, Noel B.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Blindell, James
Granville, Edgar
Martin, Thomas B.


Boulton, W. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Greaves-Lord, Sir Waiter
Milne, Charles


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Molson, A. Hugh Elidale


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Moreing, Adrian C.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypoot)
Morgan, Robert H.


Buchan, John
Groves, Thomas E.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hales, Harold K.
Morrison, William Shepherd


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Moss, Captain H. J.


Burnett, John George
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Harris, Sir Percy
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Cape, Thomas
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Carver, Major William H.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Castlereagh, Viscount
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Nunn, William


Cautley, Sir Henry s.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
O'Connor, Terence James


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hepworth, Joseph
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hope, Cant. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Patrick, Colin M.


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Pearson, William G.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Christie, James Archibald
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Radford, E. A.


Clarke, Frank
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hurd, Sir Percy
Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Cook, Thomas A.
Jenkins, Sir William
Rankin, Robert


Cooke, Douglas
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Copeland, Ida
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Ker, J. Campbell
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Cranborne, Viscount
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Rickards, George William


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Kimball, Lawrence
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Crossley, A. C.
Knight, Holford
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Daggar, George
Knox, Sir Alfred
Runge, Norah Cecil


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Davies, Stephen Owen
Law, Sir Alfred
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Lawson, John James
Salmon, Sir Isldore


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leckie, J. A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Denville, Alfred
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Dickie, John P.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Dobbie, William
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Donner, P. W.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Drewe, Cedric
Llewellin, Major John J.
Scone, Lord


Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Duggan, Hubert John
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Eales, John Frederick
Lunn, William
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)


Somervell, Sir Donald
Train, John
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Tree, Ronald
Wilmot, John


Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel Georgs


Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Withers, Sir John James


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Stones, James
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Strauss, Edward A.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Waterhouse, Captain Charles



Summersby, Charles H.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Weymouth, Viscount
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Thorne, William James
Whyte, Jardine Bell
Major George Davies.


Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)



NOES.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Janner, Barnett
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Lees-Jones, John
Remer, John R.


Buchanan, George
Levy, Thomas
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Clarry, Reginald George
McKeag, William
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
White, Henry Graham


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)



Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Milner, Major James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sir Gifford Fox and Captain


Holdsworth, Herbert
Pickering, Ernest H.
Strickland.


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Rea, Walter Russell



Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 17 of principal Act.)

Sub-section (1) of section seventeen of the principal Act (which relates to requirements as to employment of drivers and attendants) shall apply to heavy motor cars as it applies to heavy locomotives and light locomotives, and the provisions of the said section shall have effect accordingly.—[Mr. Dobbie.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. DOBBIE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I hope that after consideration of the Clause the Minister will accept it. Subsection (1) of Section 17 of the principal Act which deals with requirements as to employment of drivers and attendants, says:
In the case of heavy locomotives and light locomotives, two persons shall be employed in driving or attending the locomotive whilst being driven on any highway.
Then it goes on to make provision for further attendance when trailers are being drawn. Section 2 of the principal Act says:
Heavy motor cars; that is to say, mechanically-propelled vehicles (not being vehicles classified under this section as motor cars) which are constructed themselves to carry a load or passengers, and the weight of which unladen exceeds two tons and a-half.
I ask the Minister of Transport to realise that we are not asking for two drivers but for two men, the second man to be in the vehicle in the role of attendant. The reason why we are putting forward this proposal is that there is additional necessary work in connection with these vehicles to warrant the attendance of a second man. First of all there is the load to be protected in transit, and vehicles of two and a-half tons carry a pretty substantial load. At the moment the responsibility for its safety lies with the driver. We are of the opinion that this is an unfair imposition on the driver. Then there is the necessity for a look-out. We think a second man is necessary as a, look-out in the interests of safety, and for loading and unloading the vehicle as necessity arises. In regard to safety, we are as much concerned with the lives and safety of the people on the road as with those engaged in driving vehicles, and remembering the number of accidents which occur, safety demands that this additional safeguard should be provided.
In 1928 there were 1,164 people killed on the roads by accidents caused by commercial vehicles. Five years later, in 1933, the number of persons killed was 1,438, an increase of 23½ per cent. The number of persons injured in 1928 was 17,458, compared with 28,950 in 1933, an increase of over 65 per cent. This is a, very serious state of affairs. I felt inclined to compare the number of fatal
accidents on the road with the fatal accidents on the railways, but I was reminded that it was hardly an analogous case, because people are not allowed to walk on the railways without being liable to be prosecuted and punished, although it would appear that people are being punished very severely for walking on the road because of the lack of care taken in driving motor vehicles. We sincerely believe that the presence of a second man will have a material effect in lessening the number of accidents and deaths on our roads, and that is the strongest appeal we can make. The Minister is as anxious as anyone to do anything to lessen the terrible toll of the roads.
Heavy and light locomotives are compelled to carry a second man. They are slow-running vehicles; they run at the rate of three miles an hour, often do not carry any load in addition to their own weight, and they certainly never run at more than eight miles an hour. Our contention is that fast-moving vehicles, considerably faster than these locomotives, which in almost every instance carry a load should, in the interests of safety, be compelled to carry a second man. The request we make is both logical and reasonable. This matter has been considered on many occasions by a number of organisations. The Trades Union Congress, which, I believe, reflects the considered judgment of the organised workers of this country, has on more than one occasion, when representatives of all the organisations catering for road transport have been in attendance, passed resolutions unanimously in favour of the principle embodied in the proposed new Clause.

Mr. STANLEY: Are we to understand that the General Transport Workers' Union are in favour of the Clause?

Mr. DOBBIE: When I spoke of resolutions being passed on more than one occasion—

Mr. STANLEY: Would the hon. Member answer the question?

Mr. DOBBIE: Yes, but I want to understand the implications of the question. At these conferences there were representatives of the General Transport Workers' Union, the National Union of Railwaymen, and other unions catering
for transport workers—I can give the Minister the dates of the conferences—and the resolution was passed unanimously. In Bristol and Liverpool certain organisations have come to an agreement with the owners on the lines laid down in this Clause. We want a condition of affairs in regard to road transport in which the good employer shall not be in any worse position than the bad employer. The organisation to which I belong has many thousands of these men as members, and we have had this demand from men in all parts of the country. More than one conference has been held at which only men employed as drivers or attendants were present, and from all these conferences there has come an urgent, insistent and unanimous demand asking the organisation to proceed in their endeavour to get a second man in attendance on these vehicles.
These are the reasons why we ask the House to agree to the Clause. The organisation to which I belong has had some communications with the Minister on the matter. As lately as last year he was in communication with it, and I feel that he is bound to support the proposal, taking into consideration the nature of the reply which he sent to us. He said that a proposal of this kind could only be considered in connection with any general legislation. I submit that this is the time to deal with the matter, and I hope that the Minister of Transport, in accordance with the hope which he inspired in our organisation by his communication, will agree that the time has arrived to embody a proposal of this kind in the Bill, and thus give effect to what they looked upon as a promise.

Mr. T. SMITH: I beg to second the Motion.

6.24 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The hon. Member, for some reason best known to himself, supposes that my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is in favour of the proposed new Clause. If he had read a report of the proceedings of the Committee upstairs he would realise that this Amendment was proposed by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) and was not accepted. The hon.
Member has rather exaggerated the necessity for the new Clause. Under Section 17 of the Act of 1930 when a trailer is drawn by a heavy motor car, an attendant is required in addition to the two persons on the locomotive, but we can see no grounds for requiring two persons in the case of these vehicles. It is obvious that a trailer is in a different position when drawn by a locomotive; it is necessary to have a look-out for purposes of public safety. In the case described by the hon. Member the attendant really could not be of any great help to the driver. He would not help him to drive and, therefore, it is not in the public interest to have this additional attendant. We cannot accept the Clause, as it would be an unnecessary addition to the cost of labour.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) did not refer to the refusal of the Minister of Transport to accept this Amendment in Committee, probably because he was hoping to witness repentance on his part this afternoon. I am surprised that the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend have not carried more weight with the Minister of Transport. The Clause asks that two people shall be employed on goods vehicles which are sometimes large and unwieldy, and which require the full strength of the individual who is in charge. There are occasions on which the driver would require assistance. There are also occasions when the second man might be able to relieve the driver.

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member who moved the Clause pointed out that nothing in it enables the second man to drive the car; he is only to be in attendance.

Mr. GRENFELL: The same argument was used in Committee upstairs. It may be that the second man need not be able to drive the car, but it would be very useful if he could and, certainly, my hon. Friend would not object to a second driver being on a vehicle of this kind. To get the full advantage out of this proposal it would be necessary to have a second man who was a competent driver and capable of relieving his colleague at the wheel. If the objection to this proposal is on the ground of expense then the Minister ought to say so. If there
are technical objections, if it can be shown that the efficient driving of the vehicle would be jeopardised by the presence of an additional man, then we would be prepared to consider such objections but as these vehicles are growing larger and larger as time goes on, we think that an Amendment of this kind ought not to be rejected without substantial reasons.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went, and, having re turned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

1. Mines (Working Facilities) Act, 1934.
2. Gas Undertakings Act, 1934.
3. Unemployment Act, 1934.
4. Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934.
5. Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934.
6. Darlington Corporation Act, 1934.
7. London Midland and Scottish Railway Act, 1934.
8. London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1934.

Orders of the Day — ROAD TRAFFIC BILL.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 17 of principal Act.)

Question again proposed, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

6.43 p.m.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: When the Debate was interrupted I was asking the Minister whether there were any substantial reasons why this proposal should not be accepted apart from those given by the Parliamentary Secretary. It has not been suggested that the efficiency of safety of the driver would be in any way prejudiced by the presence of a second man, and I suggest that in deference to the widespread demand among those concerned for some provision of this kind, the Minister ought to give further consideration to the proposed new Clause. Unless the Minister is prepared to do so, we shall be compelled to press this question to a Division.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 38; Noes, 239.

Division No. 309.]
AYES.
[6.44 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Rathbone, Eleanor


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cape, Thomas
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Thorne, William James


Cove, William G.
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
West, F. R.


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Davies, Stephen Owen
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Dobbie, William
Lunn, William
Wilmot, John


Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentine L.



Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
M[...]ner, Major James
Mr. Groves and Mr. G. Macdonald.


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Nathan, Major H. L.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Llewellin, Major John J.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Elmley, Viscount
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Albery, Irving James
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mabane, William


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Atholl, Duchess of
Fox, Sir Gifford
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Ganzoni, Sir John
McKeag, William


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
McKie, John Hamilton


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Bernays, Robert
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Blinden, James
Goff, Sir Park
Magnay, Thomas


Borodale, Viscount
Granville, Edgar
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Boulton, W. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Boyce, H. Leslie
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Martin, Thomas B.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hales, Harold K.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Harris, Sir Percy
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Moreing, Adrian C.


Carver, Major William H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Morgan, Robert H.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hellgert, Captain F. F. A.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Morrison, William Shepherd


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Moss, Captain H. J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. M. (Edgbaston)
Hepworth, Joseph
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Clarry, Reginald George
Holdsworth, Herbert
Nunn, William


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
O'Connor, Terence James


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G A.


Cook, Thomas A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Cooke, Douglas
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Patrick, Colin M.


Copeland, Ida
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Pearson, William G.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Peat, Charles U.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Hurd, Sir Percy
Penny, Sir George


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hutchison, W. O. (Essex, Romf'd)
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bllst'n)


Crossley, A. C.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard
Janner, Barnett
Radford, E. A.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Ker, J. Campbell
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Denville, Alfred
Kimball, Lawrence
Rankin, Robert


Dickie, John P.
Knight, Holford
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Doran, Edward
Knox, Sir Alfred
Rea, Walter Russell


Drewe, Cedric
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Law, Sir Alfred
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Leckie, J. A.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lees-Jones, John
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Eales, John Frederick
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rickards, George William


Eastwood, John Francis
Levy, Thomas
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Edmondson, Major Sir James
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Spent, William Patrick
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Runge, Norah Cecil
Stevenson, James
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Weymouth, Viscount


Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Stones, James
White, Henry Graham


Salmon, Sir Isldore
Storey, Samuel
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Strauss, Edward A.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Summersby, Charles H.
Withers, Sir John James


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Tate, Mavis Constance
Womersley, Sir Walter


Scone, Lord
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Touche, Gordon Cosmo



Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)
Train, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Somervell, Sir Donald
Tree, Ronald
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Major George Davies.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 72 of the principal Act.)

Section seventy-two of the principal Act (which relates to road-service licences) shall have effect as though in Sub-section (3) thereof, after the word "providing," there were inserted the word "road," and as though at the end of the said Sub-section there were added the words "or by persons who are providing rail or other transport facilities, whose representations however shall be restricted to the presentation by them for the consideration of the commissioners of the time tables and fare tables of the services provided by them."—[Mr. McKeag.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. McKEAG: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This deals with that part of Section 72 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which gives power to railway companies to lodge objections to applications by omnibus operators for road service licences, and who appear in the traffic commissioners' courts in support of those objections. I will read those words which constitute the part of the Section which I seek to amend:
The commissioners shall … take into consideration any representations which may be made by persons who are already providing transport facilities along or near to the routes or any part thereof or by any local authority in whose area any of the routes or any part of any of the routes is situate.
That gives the railway companies the same range of objection as is given to the competing omnibus services; in other words, the railway companies are given the same rights as are given to omnibus operators who may be running along the same routes. It is true that the Act of 1930 sought to secure co-ordination of all forms of passenger transport, but in
putting down this Amendment my desire was that the railway companies should still have the rights of objection and representation, but with some limitation. If the Section is amended as I now suggest, the railway companies will still be able to go to the Traffic Commissioners' courts, lodge objections, and put forward particulars of their own services, because it will then read that the Commissioners, in deciding whether or not to grant a road service licence to any omnibus operator
shall take into consideration any representations which may be made by persons who are already providing road transport facilities along or near to the routes … or by persons who are providing rail or other transport facilities, whose representations however shall be restricted to the presentation by them for the consideration of the commissioners of the time tables and fare tables of the services provided by them.
I submit that that Section would give to the railway companies all the power which they should properly have if the object of the 1930 Road Traffic Act is to be carried out, namely, that co-ordination of all forms of transport, including rail transport, should be secured, if at all possible, and it would enable the railway companies to place before the Traffic Commissioners full particulars of the services which they provide, their time tables and their fare tables, and the Commissioners would be bound to take into consideration the information so provided. All that the Amendment does is to restrict to some extent the present practice of the railway companies in carrying on hearings before the Traffic Commissioners to interminable lengths on objections and by way of cross-examination on all sorts of things not even remotely connected with the services of the railway companies.
I would ask the House to have regard to the present anomalous position, in which the railway companies have full power of objection to applications by omnibus operators, but the omnibus operators have no power at all of representation or objection against railway companies' rail operations. This power of the railway companies to object to every application by omnibus operators has been abused to a very considerable extent. It has become their invariable practice to object to every application by private omnibus operators on principle, even when the competition of those operators with the service provided by the railway companies is only the remotest possible contingency. The railway companies are also invariably represented before the Traffic Commissioners by lawyers, who subject the operators and their witnesses to very long cross-examination; and for purposes of self-preservation the omnibus operators as well, no matter how small the case may be, are compelled to be legally represented. By that process omnibus operators have had a terrible burden thrust upon them. The hearings before the Traffic Commissioners have been unnecessarily prolonged, and the transport industry has been subjected to, an avoidable expenditure of thousands of pounds. In many cases the smaller omnibus operators, faced with the powerful and persistent opposition of the railway companies, have at last crashed financially, or have been compelled to give up the ghost and sell out to competing omnibus concerns, which, in many cases, have been associated companies of the railways. I submit that practice has shown that objections by railway companies have taken up unnecessarily the time of the Commissioners' courts and that the Commissioners have no control whatever over the railway companies' services.
This fact has produced somewhat farcical results at times. There is, for instance, the case of a railway company which has been objecting to an application by an omnibus operator on the ground that the fares to be charged by the operator were too small. The Traffic Commissioners have had regard to representations of the railway companies and have stated that they would only grant
the application provided that the fares were increased. The moment the decision has been given by the commissioners, the railway companies have forthwith proceeded to reduce their own fares and the Traffic Commissioners have had no control whatever over their action. There is also the case of the railway companies who have objected to these applications on the ground that adequate travel facilities are already provided by them and by the other transport undertakings. The commissioners have had regard to those representations by the railway companies, and have perhaps insisted upon certain restrictions reducing the omnibus operators' services. As soon as the railway companies have achieved their object in that direction, they have proceeded to reduce their own facilities, and again the Traffic Commissioners have had no control over them.

This Clause follows an Amendment which was moved on my behalf by the hon. Member for one of the Edinburgh Divisions in Committee upstairs. The chief objection taken to that Amendment upstairs was that, as then drafted, it would deprive the railway companies of any right of appeal against a decision of the Traffic Commissioners. I have endeavoured to meet that opposition by altering the Amendment in such a way that the new Clause as now proposed will not deprive the railway companies of the right of appeal to the Minister if they are dissatisfied with the Traffic Commissioners' decision. I would therefore suggest, that, this objection having been removed, the Minister might now see his way to accept this Clause. I appeal to him to accept it because, while still preserving the interests of the railway companies, it will facilitate proceedings in the Traffic Commissioners' courts, save a tremendous amount of time which has hitherto been taken up quite unnecessarily, and result in a saving to the transport industry of many thousands of pounds. Above all, it will go a long way to promoting that more harmonious relationship between rival transport undertakings which is so much to be desired by removing a long-standing grievance on the part of the omnibus operators against what they genuinely think to be an injustice, and an inevitable one. I hope that the Minister will see his way
to accept the Clause now that it has been modified to meet the objection which was raised upstairs.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: The House has a lot of business to get through to-day and I do not intend to detain it for more than two seconds. The point has been fully covered by the hon. Member who has just spoken, and I sincerely hope that the Minister of Transport will see his way to accept the Clause.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I am sure that the hon. Member who moved this Clause, and the House, will believe that I am only too anxious to do anything to deal with people who take up unnecessary time. I do not think, however, that the time taken up by these applications before the authorities can be described as time wasted. We must remember that the fundamental principle of the scheme laid down by the Road Traffic Act was the co-ordination by this machinery of all forms of traffic, including the railways. Frankly, I cannot see how that co-ordination can be carried out if one of the principal constituents of the co-ordinating body is to be refused the right of proper representation during these proceedings. Apparently, the railway company appear and can put in their time schedules and their fare tables, but even if during the course of the hearing they find that one of their rivals is making a statement which they know to be untrue, they have no right to stand up and cross-examine, and no opportunity for bringing the real facts of the case to the notice of the Commissioners. I submit that in those circumstances to expect the Commissioners to carry out their duties of coordinating all forms of traffic would be idle, and I therefore cannot accept the Clause.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 9 of principal Act.)

Notwithstanding anything in section nine of the principal Act a person under twenty-one years of age shall not drive on a road a heavy goods vehicle within the meaning of section twenty-eight of this Act the weight of which unladen exceeds one ton and a half.—[Mr. D. Grenfell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The conditions under which licences are granted are laid down in Section 9 of the principal Act, in which are the words:
"(3) A person under twenty-one years of age shall not drive a heavy locomotive, light locomotive, motor tractor or heavy motor car on a road unless on first applying for a licence—"
That is the provision which determines the age at which licences shall be granted to young persons. Section 2 (1, d) of the same Act defines heavy motor cars as:
mechanically propelled vehicles (not being vehicles classified under this section as motor cars) which are constructed themselves to carry a load or passengers, and the weight of which unladen exceeds two tons and a half:
It may be observed that in the Clause which we now offer to the House the weight of the vehicle unladen is not to exceed 30 cwt. The reason for this pro-vision is that there has been very considerable change in the construction of motor vehicles. Considerable improvements have been made, which mean that the same carrying capacity has been achieved with a considerable saving in the volume of material in the construction of the chassis and all the parts of the vehicle. A document has been sent to me, in common, I suppose, with all hon. Members of the House, from the Transport Workers' Federation. I shall not weary the House by reading it in its entirety, but there are one or two points in it which should be brought to the attention of the House. A very instructive comparison is made between vehicles of to-day and those of a few years ago. The document says:
In the last year or two there has been considerable development in the construction of goods vehicles with the result that vehicles of an unladen weight below the limit mentioned are now able to carry very heavy loads.
Illustrations of this fact can be taken from the advertisements in the technical press. For instance, a description of a six-wheeled vehicle published last month contains the following details:

Tons.
Cwt.


Chassis weight
…
1
19


Body allowance
…

8


Driver
…

1¼


Fuel, equipment, etc.
…

1


Total unladen weight
…
2
9¼"

So skilfully has its construction been carried out by the manufacturer that the total unladen weight of this vehicle now stands at 2 tons 9¼ cwt., which is below the 2 ton 10 cwt. which is the limit of a heavy vehicle. This accounts for a great deal. Because this vehicle is under 2 tons 10 cwt. its speed can be increased in accordance with the law and regulations to 30 miles an hour. If that vehicle had weighed one cwt. more, its speed would have been reduced to 20 miles an hour. The House can see that there is considerable advantage to a firm in employing this vehicle rather than one with an unladen weight beyond the limit.

We must have regard, therefore, not only to the comparative unladen weight but to the speed at which this vehicle travels on the road. A vehicle of 2 tons 9¼ cwt. and, indeed, a vehicle of 30 cwt., travelling at 30 miles an hour is almost as unmanageable as a vehicle of 50 cwt. travelling at 20 miles an hour. The difference is not very great. But the unladen weight is not the whole of the story. We find that the lighter vehicle can now carry a heavier load than the heavier vehicle could, and when you come to compare the weights of the loaded vehicles you find that there is no difference at all between them. Let me show what this vehicle of 2 tons 9¼ cwt. unladen weight will carry. It is claimed to carry a pay-load of 4 tons, and when fully loaded will weigh 6 tons. 9¼ cwt. It carries as much as will a vehicle of unladen weight 3 tons which was constructed only three years ago. In view of this greater carrying capacity and greater laden weight we think that the standard of 2 tons 10 cwt. should be reduced, and that no young person under 21 should be allowed to be in charge of or to drive a vehicle of greater unladen weight than 30 cwt.

The transport industry is not entirely immune from unemployment. It is definitely wrong for this House or the Ministry of Transport or the Traffic Commissioners or anyone concerned to encourage the employment of people who are too young for these important and onerous duties. There is no reason why young boys under 21 should be allowed to drive these vehicles when there are numbers of drivers of 21 and over seeking employment. Because of the various considerations involved, which are well known to the Minister, I hope he will give some fresh consideration to this matter and accept the new Clause. 1 feel that on every ground it is fully justified.

7.16 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell). I think the main argument really came at the end, when he pointed out the necessity of employing older men in the transport industry. With regard to what he said about construction and development in the motor industry, I can assure him that my hon. Friend will keep a close watch on that side of the problem. We see no reason, as things are at the present time, to accept the new Clause. We feel that young men are perfectly capable of managing these vehicles, and the statistics really do not show that accidents are due to the employment of young men in these posts. We are not prepared to accept the proposed Clause, because we do not believe it is necessary at the present time.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 30; Noes, 206.

Division No. 310.]
AYES.
[7.18 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Bees (Glamorgan)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Smith. Tom (Normanton)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Thorne, William James


Capo, Thomas
Jenkins, Sir William
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawson, John James
West, F. R.


Cove, William G.
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Daggar, George
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Dobbie, William
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Milner, Major James
Mr. Tinker and Mr. Groves.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.


Albery, Irving James
Aske, Sir Robert William
Balfour, George (Hampstead)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Atholl, Duchess of
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Radford, E. A.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Borodale, Viscount
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hepworth, Joseph
Rankin, Robert


Brass, Captain Sir William
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Broadbent, Colonel John
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rea, Walter Russell


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Buchan, John
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Remer, John R.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Rickards, George William


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Janner, Barnett
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Carver, Major William H.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Ker, J. Campbell
Rothschild, James A. de


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Kimball, Lawrence
Runge, Norah Cecil


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Salmon, Sir Isldore


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Law, Sir Alfred
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Leckie, J. A.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Savory, Samuel Servington


Cooke, Douglas
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Scone, Lord


Copeland, Ida
Llewellin, Major John J.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Mabane, William
Somervell, Sir Donald


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Mac Andrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Crossley, A. C.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Spens, William Patrick


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McKeag, William
Stevenson, James


Davison, Sir William Henry
McKie, John Hamilton
Stones, James


Denman, Hon. R. O.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Storey, Samuel


Denville, Alfred
Macqulsten, Frederick Alexander
Strauss, Edward A.


Doran, Edward
Magnay, Thomas
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Drewe, Cedric
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Summersby, Charles H.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Eales, John Frederick
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Eastwood, John Francis
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Edmondson, Major Sir James
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Train, John


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Elmley, Viscount
Milne, Charles
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Emrys- Evans, P. V.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Morgan, Robert H.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Fox, Sir Gilford
Morrison, William Shaphard
Weymouth, Viscount


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Moss, Captain H. J.
White, Henry Graham


Ganzoni, Sir John
Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Goff, Sir Park
Nunn, William
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Granville, Edgar
O'Connor, Terence James
Wise, Alfred R.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Withers, Sir John James


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Palmer, Francis Noel
Womersley, Sir Walter


Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Patrick, Colin M.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pearson, William G.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Peat, Charles U.



Hales, Harold K.
Penny, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Lieut.-


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Pybus, Sir Percy John
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 19 of principal Act.)

The following sub-section shall be inserted after sub-section (3) of section nineteen of the principal Act:—

(3a) The Minister may also, in the case of stage carriages, approve such variation of the aforementioned limits of time as may be embodied in an agreement submitted by a joint industrial council, conciliation board, or other similar body, whether for an undertaking or undertakings,
provided for the regulation of working times and rest periods having regard to both the day and the week, provided that the schedules and rotas giving effect to such agreement shall be deposited with and subject to the approval of the traffic commissioners, and providing they are of the opinion that the operation of such working time and rest periods embodied in such schedules and rotas are not likely to be detrimental to the public safety.—[Mr. D. Grenfell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time.
The intention of this new Clause is to put right a difficulty which has appeared in consequence of the operation of the principal Act, and of the conditions imposed on the men engaged in the transport industry in 1930. There were provisions in Section 19 of that Act regarding the maximum number of hours during which men could be continuously engaged on motor vehicles, and quite unexpectedly that condition was operated to the great detriment of many thousands of men engaged in the transport industry. The Section lays down
that it shall not be lawful … for any person to drive or cause or permit any person employed by him or subject to his orders to drive—

(i) for any continuous period of more than five hours and one-half; or
(ii) for continuous periods amounting in the aggregate to more than eleven hours in any period of twenty-four hours commencing two hours after midnight; or
(iii) so that the driver has not at least ten consecutive hours for rest in any period of twenty-four hours calculated from the commencement of any period of driving.
In consequence of these conditions new schedules of hours of employment and schedules for determining the hours of employment were agreed to between employers and men engaged in the transport industry. While the strict provisions of the law have been carried out and are being faithfully carried out, the conditions of continuous employment have led to what is called the split shift. It has been called also the gap, the spread-over and a variety of other terms. It accounts for the present condition which enables men to be employed in the course of the day for a considerable number of hours; but so long as the continuous number of hours of employment is not violated the men can be at the beck and call of the employers for a considerable part of the working day. In many parts of the country men are on duty more or less from early hours in the morning until very late at night without violating the conditions in the principal Act.
This is a matter of very sore grievance to the men in the transport industry. I do not know of a body of workers who have a more justifiable discontent at the action of the Government.
I know it was not the intention of the Government responsible for the principal Act to impose such conditions upon these men, but its effect has been very unhappy and has caused them a great deal of hardship. We do not ask in this new Clause that the law shall lay down the condition that there is to be no break of any kind in the course of a shift, but we ask that the Minister shall approve of such variation of the limits of time as may be embodied in an agreement submitted by a joint industrial council, conciliation board or other similar body. There is a request that the Minister shall approve of local agreements, which shall be subject, further, to the approval of the Traffic Commissioners of our great transport areas. We do not ask the Minister to stipulate exactly the number of hours of break in a shift, but ask that he shall give his administrative approval to agreements, so that those who are responsible for proposing that break will know that they must satisfy the Traffic Commissioners in the first instance and, later, the Ministry of Transport.
When these transport workers have a genuine grievance, brought about by a previous Act of Parliament, we urge that it is the duty of the House and of the Minister to repair that wrong done. When a workman subject to an agreement to work no more than 48 hours a week of six days finds that he has to be away from home for 70 or 75 hours in order to fulfil his obligations to his employers, he feels there is something wrong which ought to be set right, and the authority to act are the Traffic Commissioners, who have been given very great powers, and the Minister. We do not ask the Traffic Commissioners to declare universal conditions, to insist that universal working hours shall be observed by every form of transport organisation, but we do ask for the sympathetic interest of the commissioners and of the Minister.
We are not sure that the Clause is so framed that it will accomplish all that we want, because it is difficult to draw up a form of words which will secure all the safeguards which we desire, but the present system is undoubtedly making serious inroads into the domestic life of these men, and having a detrimental effect on their health. Men have to be away from home from 5 o'clock
in the morning until 10 or 11 o'clock at night in order to earn one day's wage for a spell of eight or nine hours' work. They suffer breaks of three, four or five hours, during which they have nowhere to go but are left hanging round weary hour after weary hour. We hope that if the Minister cannot accept the Clause he will give an assurance that his Department will take some steps to encourage agreements when they can be brought about, and will require that no voluntary agreement shall be binding unless it is approved by him and by the commissioners.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: When we discussed this matter in Committee the Minister agreed that Section 19 of the Act of 1930 was not working as well as it might work, and I should have been surprised if he had taken up any other attitude. A good many drivers of passenger vehicles cannot understand why, under that Act of Parliament, they should be called upon to work longer hours for less wages than under the ordinary trade union agreements prior to the passing of that Act. The experience of the last two or three years has shown the need for altering the provisions of that Section 19. When we moved a similar Clause in Committee the Minister said it went far too wide, that if it were accepted certain consequences would follow which he could not accept. We have accordingly amended the Clause.
I would like the House to observe that this is not a one-sided request mainly from the trade unions, because some of the employers' organisations have said that in their opinion there is room for an alteration in Section 19 of the 1930 Act. Therefore I hope that no hon. Member will oppose this new Clause simply because it is moved from these benches. The Clause says that if an agreement comes from a joint industrial council, a conciliation board or other similar body then, subject to the Traffic Commissioners being satisfied that it is in the interests of public safety, the Minister is to have certain powers. The Minister is aware that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction among the drivers of passenger vehicles, and in my opinion it is justifiable dissatisfaction. We know that the Minister is sympathetic. The Clause may not be worded as perhaps it could be by skilled draftsmen, but we
ask the Minister to pay some heed to the representations made to him by the General and Transport Workers' Union, backed up by some of the employers' organisations. The Minister has been in communication, and even in negotiation, with some of those bodies, and he might tell us whether he intends to do anything. If he cannot accept the Clause as worded we hope he will do something, when the Bill gets to another place, to meet the joint wishes of those engaged in the industry.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: When a similar Clause to this was moved in Committee, I agreed that it was unfortunate that a Clause in an Act of Parliament which was designed to regulate the hours of labour from the point of view of safety should, in a certain number of cases—because we must not exaggerate the effect—have actually led to a worsening of the conditions of labour. I was unable to accept the Clause then, but said that. I was prepared between then and a further stage, although the matter was extremely difficult, to discuss the matter with the unions to see whether something could be done. I have carried out that promise and have discussed this matter with the union chiefly concerned, and I am only too sorry that the discussions have not resulted in my being able to put something on the Amendment Paper. I explained to the Committee, as I now explain to the House, that I could not accept a Clause drawn as this is, which would take away from the Industrial Court the right of advising me upon this question of hours in relation to safety which was put upon them by the Act of 1930. The Industrial Court take a general and uniform view of the problem and are a far more suitable body to deal with the question. My predecessor, in setting up the machinery, thought that the 13 Traffic Commissioners up and down the country might take different views of this problem, and that there might be a certain lack of uniformity if it were left to them; but although I regard any alteration of that kind as quite impossible I do believe that it would be possible to devise certain variations of the hours laid down in Section 19 which would go a long way to obviate these extremely harassing split duties.
Unfortunately, when I discussed this matter with the union concerned, I found that they thought that nothing was any good whatsoever which was not dependent on a union agreement and which did not exclude from the benefits of whatever concession was made men who happened to be non-unionists. I ask the House to consider my position. Under Section 19 I am concerned only with questions of safety, and not in the least concerned with the question, important as it is, of the relations of employers and employed. My only duty is to see that the hours are consonant with safety. If we were to make any variation of the hours dependent upon a trade union agreement, and therefore upon union labour, what would be the result? We might have two omnibuses running along the same route, one behind the other, and the schedule allowed to one would be proclaimed to be safe because the man driving the omnibus was a trade unionist, and the same schedule would be disallowed, on the ground of insecurity, in the case of the omnibus coming behind because the driver of it was a non-unionist. I am sure the House will realise, concerned as I am, in this case, only with the question of safety, that that was an attitude which it was impossible for me to adopt.
I am still prepared to discuss this matter with a view to getting some amelioration of the position, but I would point out to hon. Members opposite, who no doubt have got in their minds the fact that if any concession is confined to trade unionists and to people covered by an agreement between employers and employed it will be easier to enforce its maintenance, that the Act of 1930 has placed the duty of the enforcement of these provisions upon the Government. There is machinery to do that through the examiners, and as regards staff, we are in a better position now than we were before, to see that any concession is not abused. I am as ready as I was on the previous stage to discuss any possible amelioration, but the lines upon which this Clause is drafted make it impossible for me to accept it.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: I am sorry to hear what the Minister has had to say on this very mild Clause. I
thought it was almost as cool as an icecream sandwich on a hot summer day. The first part of the Clause speaks of an agreement submitted by a joint industrial council. I should have thought the Minister would at least have thought that such an agreement was quite safe. As a member of a joint industrial council for the last 10 years, I must say that I wish we had had joint industrial councils in the mining industry many years ago. When a joint industrial council comes to an agreement, that agreement is, generally speaking, sound and good. The Clause also states that we desire to have joint industrial councils, or conciliation boards, or similar bodies. The great grievance as far as we are concerned is the question of the split shift, not only for men but for women. In my Division we have women turning out at 4.30 in the morning. The shift is split three times in the day, and some are going home eight miles from the centre, at 11 o'clock at night. That is a grievance that requires to be remedied. I am sorry that the Minister does not see eye to eye with us on this matter. There is a safety provision in the Amendment. It provides, first, for an industrial council, secondly, for a conciliation board, and thirdly for any other similar body, and finally it is to be subject to the approval of the Traffic Commissioners. The Traffic Commissioners are there to ensure safety, and surely they will see that no agreements are made unless they are for the safety of the public, otherwise they will not ratify them. There is also the proviso that only such agreements should be adopted as
are not likely to be detrimental to tie public safety.
I do not know whether the Minister saw in the newspapers this morning a statement by one of the Traffic Commissioners. I think it was this morning, but I am not sure, because days are now so long for me. I have been accustomed to a six-hour shift before I came to this House, and now I am blacklegging and doing 14 to 15 hours a day. We are all doing it. The commissioner said, when a driver told him that his wages, before off-takes, were 32s. a week: "How can you expect to get capable and competent men at 32s. a week as drivers?" It is a disgrace. Surely, the Minister will agree that if a joint industrial council agrees
in regard to proper wages and the safety of the public he might accept our new Clause. I trust that in any case he will not put on the Whips and that he will let us win for once in a while.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: I must confess to a feeling of disappointment at the reply given by the Minister. I find it difficult to understand why he cannot accept the Amendment. The Amendment is not compulsory or mandatory. It starts with the word "may." He is not obliged to accept any of the recommendations made to him. If, however, any recommendations were made they would convey the general wishes of the employers and the employed.

Mr. STANLEY: There is a third party, and that is the public whose safety is concerned. An agreement between employers and employed does not necessarily mean that the interests of the public have been properly safeguarded.

Mr. MANDER: That would be a very strong point if the Amendment were mandatory, but seeing that the discretion is left in the hands of the Minister, if he feels that the public point of view has not been safeguarded it would be easy to refer the recommendation back to the joint industrial council, pointing out that in the public interest certain changes should be made, and possibly they would reconsider their position and put forward something else. The Government have recently made an advance with regard to the powers and the decisions of joint industrial councils in connection with cotton trade wages in Lancashire, and I thought that this was a very mild and simple opportunity for extending the principle in another direction.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: The Minister gave a hint or a promise that he would again see the union representatives, if they approached him.

Mr. STANLEY: I must make it quite clear that I am open to be approached again on the lines that I indicated in Committee and here, if the unions so desire.

Mr. GRENFELL: In view of that statement, we are ready to withdraw the Amendment, in the hope that we shall be able to come to some understanding which
will enable part if not the whole of what we desire to be adopted.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Fire extinguishers.)

The regulations in the Road Traffic Act of 1930 making it compulsory to carry fire extinguishers on public service vehicles shall be extended to all motor vehicles.—[Mr. Hales.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. HALES: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is the least contentious question that has been introduced into this House for many months, and very few words should be necessary on my part to persuade the Minister to accept the Clause. It implies no expenditure, it causes no inconvenience to any living soul, and it does partially and to no inconsiderable extent militate against and reduce the accidents on our roads. The Road Traffic Act of 1930 provides that fire extinguishers must be fitted to all public service vehicles, including taxicabs, motor coaches, motor omnibuses, and commercial vehicles carrying explosive materials. Is it not inconsistent that the mere fitting of a taximeter to a vehicle means that that vehicle must have a fire extinguisher fitted, while a private motor car of the same construction in every respect has no need to be fitted with any fire extinguishing appliance?
I have in my possession a collection of newspaper cuttings relating to tragedies on the road, burning accidents, which I do not propose to read. Some of them are of the most heart-breaking description. In one case two men were out with a car which overturned at a corner. One man escaped, but the other was pinned underneath the car. It was night and no one was about, and the assistant driver frantically endeavoured to rescue his friend. He tugged and pulled as the flames slowly crept towards him, and only rescued his friend to find that he was dying. He died five minutes later. I submit that a fire extinguisher would have subdued the flames before they had reached any considerable dimensions and that a valuable life would have been saved. It may be contended that a fire extinguisher in itself would be insufficient to quell any considerable outbreak. I
admit that at once, but the very fact that every motor car arriving on the scene of the accident, fitted with a fire extinguisher, would be a guarantee that they would be able to provide immediate assistance. When an accident happens on the road we know that in a very few minutes you have a quarter of a mile of a queue of vehicles held up, and if each one had a fire extinguisher it would mean that each motor ear would practically become a fire engine and would be able to render assistance to prevent these regrettable conflagrations.
The Government of Syria in the last few weeks have made it compulsory for every motor vehicle to carry a fire extinguisher, and the new law comes into force on 1st July. There can be no doubt that road traffic to-day is one of the greatest problems with which this country is faced. The Minister has just said that public safety is his immediate concern; therefore, it implies that he will accept my new Clause with pleasure. As a pioneer of the motor industry for the last 37 years, from the days of the red flag, it has been my lot to witness some terrible accidents on the roads, and I can assure hon. Members that on certain occasions I would have given all I possessed to have had a fire extinguisher in my possession and to have been able to render assistance. I leave hon. Members to imagine the agony one suffered in trying to tear up turf from the roadside to damp out the flames, which were sufficient to reduce a motor vehicle to ashes in an hour, when the calamity could have been saved by a 10s. fire extinguisher.
There are 20 lives lost every day in the British Isles in road accidents to motor vehicles. Let us bring that fact home. It means that every five weeks the whole of the Members of this Assembly could be wiped out of existence if the accidents were confined to Members of this House. That might not be considered by some of our friends to be a national calamity. However, if it were possible to visualise the scene by laying out 20 beautiful corpses in Palace Yard every morning to let the public see what was going on, they would realise the magnitude of the disasters that are happening throughout the country. I have been trying to imagine what possible objections can be raised to the new Clause. In my opinion the
Clause is absolutely irresistible. There is no argument that can be raised against it. I can imagine someone saying: "Why should you interfere with the rights of the private owner?" I reply: "Why do you interfere with the right of every private owner by making him insure against third party risks?" Is it likely that an Act which makes a man's life safe is going to be resented when no cost whatever would be incurred by the fitting of a fire extinguisher to his car? This morning I had letters from three insurance companies, each agreeing to reduce by 5 per cent. the annual premium on a motor car where a fire extinguisher was fitted. Therefore, it would be a profit making business. A fire extinguisher can be bought in Holborn for 5s. If you take an average insurance policy at the low estimate of£10, the rebate would represent 10s. with which to buy a 5s. fire extinguisher. That would mean a gain of five shillings in the first year, but there would be a profit of 10s. for each year afterwards because of the fitting of the fire extinguisher.
Is there any hon. Member who would lift one finger against making the roads of this country safe for everyone who journeys thereon? The Act of 1930 provided for the fitting of fire extinguishers on motor vehicles, but it stopped halfway. The other day, when I spoke to the Minister of Transport I asked him why he made the fitting of fire extinguishers compulsory on service vehicles and not on private cars. He replied: "Because we want to give them time to get out." Do we not want to give people time to get out of private cars? If I drove from my constituency, is it to be understood that the Government do not want me to be able to get out of my car in the event of a fire, that they are indifferent to my being burnt up because I am a private person, and that they would put someone else in my place? It seems to me that this question has entirely escaped the notice of the Committee; otherwise, the omission would have been remedied.
It was my good fortune last year to be in very close contact with the Ministry of Transport. Within a few weeks we managed between us—I think I can take to myself a little bit of credit—to make it possible to park a car and leave the door locked. Before that it was left for
the gangster to get in, to make his smash and grab raid, and to leave the car derelict. Now, since doors have been locked there have been 20 per cent. fewer cars stolen in London in six months. A few weeks after that it was made possible to carry a parcel in a car instead of classifying it as a commercial vehicle at a higher rate of taxation. The Minister should keep in touch with those of us who know something about these matters. There seems to be an impassable gulf between the Cabinet and Members of the House, and we do not know how to bridge it. After all, business men are of some use, but there are times when I cannot catch the Speaker's eye and I go home so as not to say anything for which I shall be sorry. Here we are faced with a simple fact. Surely the National Government will not face the next general election with the record of seeming indifference to the safety of life on the roads. This is not a question of party; it is a question of humanity. If the Government resist this new Clause they will be accessories before the fact at the very next death that occurs on the roads. They will take the role of public executioners. I have seen on the road tragedies which I shall never forget as long as I live. I ask the Minister to accept this simple Clause and go home to-night and say, "I have done one good deed to-day and done something that is to the credit of the National Government."

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I beg to second the Motion.

8.3 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Although my hon. Friend has addressed me as a Boy Scout and asked me to do one good deed to-day by accepting his Clause, I am afraid that I shall not be able to satisfy him, and the reason is that the new Clause is unnecessary. If the Minister thought it desirable he could pass a regulation under Section 30, Sub-section (1) of the principal Act, with regard to the carrying of fire extinguishers generally on all motor vehicles. But my hon. Friend the Minister and his predecessors have not thought that necessary, for the simple reason that accidents which could be attributed to explosion or fire on motor vehicles, due to the ignition of fuel, do not justify putting this additional burden upon motorists. There were only seven fatal accidents of that kind last year.

Mr. HALES: I cannot see where the burden on the motorist would come.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I will try to explain. In 1933 there were only seven such accidents recorded. If you insist upon all cars carrying these fire extinguishers you put an additional expense upon motorists. There is no doubt about that. There is no reason for putting additional expense on people unless there is a cause shown, unless it is in the interests of the public as a whole. My hon. Friend is surprised that we do not do for private motor-cars what has been done for public vehicles. It is obvious that when you have a large public vehicle carrying a great number of people the conditions are not similar to those of a private car which carries its owner and for which its owner is responsible. Whenever the Ministry believes that the accidents justify any such regulation, the regulation will be issued, but up to the present the experience in Great Britain does not seem to be exactly the same as that in Syria.

Mr. HALES: Am I to take it that seven deaths in a year are of no moment? Is it not worth while to put fire extinguishers on cars in order to save seven deaths?

8.6 p.m.

Sir ALFRED LAW: I am a little surprised at the reply of the Minister. If you oblige public vehicles to have fire extinguishers, for the same reason you might compel or ask owners of private cars to have extinguishers. I dare say it will be said that you are not preventing the owner of a private car from having fire extinguishers. But you are compelling taxi-cabs and other public vehicles to carry them. It would be quite reasonable to put the same obligation upon private motor cars. I am sorry that the Minister has not been able to accept the Clause.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to sale of motor vehicles.)

(1) It shall not be lawful to sell, offer for sale, or supply a motor vehicle or trailer for use on the road, if the use thereof on a road would be unlawful under sub-section (1) of section three of the principal Act.

(2) If a motor vehicle or trailer is sold, offered for sale, or supplied in contravention
of this section any person who so sells, offers for sale, or supplies the same or causes or permits the same to be so sold, offered for sale or supplied, shall be guilty of an offence under the principal Act. The expression "person" in this sub-section shall include a body corporate.

(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to the bona fide sale, offer for sale, or supply of any motor vehicle or trailer for export from Great Britain.—[Major Lloyd George.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.8 p.m.

Major LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I do not intend to take up the time of the House with a lengthy explanation why this Clause is moved. I think it sufficient to say that under the principal Act of 1930 regulations were made under Section 3 which created certain offences, and that one of those regulations was that every motor vehicle must have a silencer that reduced the noises of the exhaust as far as was reasonable. Contravention of that regulation rendered only the user liable to prosecution. The reason for the new Clause is that we wish to extend the provision to cover not only the user, but the manufacturer of the vehicle. I think there will be general agreement in the House that it is time something was done to minimise, and if possible remove altogether, what is becoming a very serious nuisance, and increasingly so from day to day. Another important reason for the Clause is that if you make regulations governing motor vehicles generally it is of importance to see that those regulations are effective, and there is no doubt that the regulations made with regard to silencers are quite ineffective. It is manifestly unfair that it should be the user alone who is to be punished for contravening a regulation. There are many cases in which the user of a motor vehicle is proceeded against and he says quite truthfully that the vehicle for the use of which he is prosecuted was in the condition in which he bought it from the manufacturer. It is grossly unfair that only the user should be proceeded against in that connection.
Some hon. Members may ask, Are these powers necessary? They may say that there are already powers existing under the principal Act, and they might ask whether it is not sufficient to proceed against the user under the Act of 1930. It will be obvious to everyone that if
those powers had been effective we would not have the trouble that we have to-day. There is no doubt that in many cases magistrates are reluctant to punish the users of these vehicles when those users can show that their vehicles were in the condition in which they were bought from the manufacturer. If anyone doubts whether these powers are necessary, it is necessary only to listen in the streets and roads to realise that this nuisance is ever on the increase. Let me read an extract from the letter of a sales manager of one of the largest firms of manufacturers of accessories in this country. In a communication to the Press he stated:
As a general sales manager of a firm which, among other activities, supplies silencers to three-quarters of the principal motor-car manufacturers in this country, I have daily proof that one section of the motoring public demands unnecessary noise. Neither the car manufacturers nor the makers of silencers can be blamed for supplying products which conform to this public demand. The silent sports car in the present state of motoring opinion is unsaleable.
That is from the salesman of a firm which supplies three-quarters of the exhausts for the motor cars in this country. He says quite definitely that it does not pay, in many cases, to provide exhausts which are not noisy. That is sufficient proof that something ought to be done. We know that the Minister, while he sympathises with the object I have in view, does not think that it is practicable to do this in the way I have suggested. If it is not practicable to do it in this way it is very difficult to understand why the regulations were made in 1930. Those regulations are really not being observed at the present time. In the Standing Committee, when I moved this Amendment, the Minister pointed out the difficulties of working it. I thought he was a little hard put to it to find some of the difficulties which he mentioned. No one will convince me that the police do not know of the models which contravene the regulations. They are well known models. I am certain that if publicity were given to the fact that a certain make of motor car was considered by the Minister definitely to contravene the regulations under Section 3 of the principal Act, those models would not be made in future. The Minister suggested that I would like to have a factory search. I do not think that that is necessary. There is no need to go inside
a factory. As a car came out of the factory one could hear that it definitely contravened the regulations. If the Minister's view were made public, as I suggest, I have no doubt that the manufacturers would cease to manufacture those cars. The Minister mentioned one difficulty, which I do not think will arise. He said during the Committee stage, in explaining how difficult this would be to work:
I have already said I do not think you can make this Clause effective by simply finding an improper user of the car and then saying, As it has been improperly used, we think it probable it was in that condition when it left the works, and we will summon the manufacturer.' I do not think the Courts would ever convict."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 7th June, 1934; col. 499.]
I do not think it would ever be necessary to search for individuals to that extent. I come back to the main point that if these models, which are issued only rarely in the course of the year, were definitely scheduled by the Minister as contravening the regulations, they would cease to be manufactured. At the present time some manufacturers are wilfully helping people to evade regulations made under an Act of Parliament. The reason is that they are not liable, when they make machines which contravene those regulations. I am informed that there is a definite premium on the manufacture of cars which contravene the regulations. If the user and the manufacturer were made equally liable, we should not be troubled with this appalling and growing nuisance.
I know that the Minister thinks that this would defeat the object which he has in mind, which is voluntary co-operation. He said upstairs that he wants voluntary co-operation in the study of problems with a view to finding a new solution. Obviously he wants to proceed against the user. I know that he is just as anxious as I am to get something done to stop a growing nuisance, but he thinks it can be done by voluntary cooperation. That is, of course, a better way of doing everything, but once this Bill is on the Statute Book, the Minister, if he has relied only on voluntary co-operation, will have no power to proceed against the manufacturer. If he wore armed with powers such as I suggest, I believe that he would find that the desire to co-operate would be increased astonishingly. If he had the
power behind him, he could, if co-operation failed, enforce his power, and he would be astonished at the extent to which he would receive co-operation from what is, after all, only a very small section of manufacturers profiting by breaking the law.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: I support the proposed new Clause. Anyone who has had experience in the courts of the country will realise that this is a matter of great importance from the point of view of the remedying of a terrible nuisance. It is reasonable to expect that if a person purchases a motor vehicle—I am speaking of a purchaser who is not out to break the law—he requires to be provided with a vehicle which complies in all its parts with the requirements of the, law. The average man is not fully conversant with all the rules and regulations relating to motor cars, and it is absurd to allow people who are manufacturing cars and motor cycles to produce something which can be used without alteration in such a manner as to break the law as, for example, by reason of the absence of an efficient silencer. One can purchase in certain cases instruments for reducing the noise, but that consideration does not appeal to some purchasers of cars or, more particularly, of motor cycles, when they are deliberately anxious to make a noise because they think they are doing something clever.
The peaceful and law-abiding citizen who is brought before a court is amazed to find that his excuse that he bought the vehicle believing that it complied with all the legal requirements is not valid, and that he can be charged with the commission of an offence, and that if the magistrates do forgive him for what he has done it is an act of grace on their part. There are other instances in which a man is entitled to plead as a correct defence for what might otherwise be an offence that the person from whom he purchased a commodity had supplied it direct from a certain source. In the case of a deficiency in butter fat in milk, if an accused can prove that there was no tampering with the milk from the time when it was taken from the cow to the time when he sold it, he has committed no offence. I think the Minister will agree that in the case of a car a similar reasonable answer that the car
was used as it was bought should be a defence to a charge under this Measure. It is essential to reduce noise as much as possible.
We get enough of the various town and street noises which cannot be avoided, without suffering the discomfort of having added to them noises which can be prevented. In the constituency which I represent there is much noise of heavy traffic, and the general movement in the locality is sufficient disturbance for the people who live and who carry on their daily business there. One would think that the opportunity afforded to the Minister by this Clause to check the additional noise that is caused by vehicles which do not carry efficient silencers would be eagerly accepted. I do not think anyone would object to it. I do not think the manufacturers would object to it. It would prevent them from being practically pushed into producing something which they do not wish to produce. The general public would not object to it, because it would add to their comfort, as they would not be disturbed as they are at present by some of these vehicles. The people using the vehicles would also have no cause for complaint, because they would not be able to obtain something which was obnoxious and which they ought to realise would disturb the general public. In all the circumstances, I do not think there is anyone who would not willingly and gladly support either this particular Clause or something of a similar nature in order to get the existing grievances remedied.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I think I need hardly say that I have a very great deal of sympathy with what my hon. and gallant Friend has said in moving this Clause. Not only is it the general desire of all of us to eliminate unnecessary noise whenever that is possible, but one is struck by the unfairness of a position in which the user of a vehicle, which he may buy and not alter at all, is liable to be prosecuted, and not the seller of the vehicle. But the difficulty about this Clause, as I explained in Committee, is that its enforcement would be practically impossible. When my hon. and gallant Friend says that I was hard put to it to find arguments, I assure him that, if I had been hard put to it to find arguments, I should not have used them at
all, because I am as anxious as he is to see this thing done, and, if I were to try to find specious reasons why it should not be done, I should be guilty of great insincerity.
When my hon. and gallant Friend was quoting ways in which such a provision could be enforced, every instance that he quoted was an instance of the use of a car by someone, and in such cases a prosecution is possible even as the law stands now. My hon. and gallant Friend says that one can wait outside the factory gate, and, if a car comes out which makes a noise, one can prosecute; but I can do that to-day, because the car is being used by someone, and the person who uses it can be prosecuted. I do not, however, conceal the fact that I do not regard the present provisions as satisfactory, even as regards the user of the car, and I am sure that anyone who has any experience of police courts knows the extreme difficulty of getting a conviction under the present regulations. At the present moment I am in consultation with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the National Physical Laboratory on the scientific aspect of the question of silencing motor cars, in order to see whether it would not be possible, as a result of investigation, to make regulations dealing with the user which are more precise and easier to apply. My hon. and gallant Friend says that the general knowledge that a particular car is likely to contravene the regulations will stop manufacturers putting it on the market, but that general knowledge is acquired however the prosecution is brought.
Further, as I told the Committee, I am in consultation with the Society of Motor Manufacturers with the object of trying to see if I cannot get voluntary co-operation in stopping what is really of no use to them. The vast majority of them do not want it, and, if they do it, it is only because they are forced to do it. One or two manufacturers have set the fashion, there is a demand among a certain section of the population for a noisy car, and the fact that one or two people cater for that demand gradually forces the others to compete. I say quite frankly to the House that I am not so far entirely satisfied with the response that has been made. I am not asking them to cooperate with me with the idea that, if I
cannot get that co-operation, nothing is going to be done at all. I am asking them to co-operate with me because I think that voluntary effort is the best. If I cannot get that voluntary effort and co-operation, I shall have to turn to other methods. I do not think that, if and when I have to abandon any idea of a voluntary arrangement, the particular scheme set out in this Clause is the one that I should adopt. I have in my mind a machinery which I think would be very much more effctive.
I think that my hon. and gallant Friend is mistaken when he says that the passage of this Clause would create among the manufacturers a much greater readiness to co-operate with me. I think that exactly the opposite would be the case. They would know as well as I do that this Clause as drafted would be on the Statute Book as a dead letter, and their feeling, I think, would be—I am not speaking of manufacturers as a whole, but of those few whose co-operation is denied to me—that Parliament had shot its bolt, that it had put on the Statute Book what it meant to do about this matter, that the Clause was one which could be easily avoided, and that, therefore, any real danger of enforcement by statute had disappeared and the need for co-operation had gone. I think, therefore, that the effect of passing the Clause would be the exact opposite of what my hon. and gallant Friend desires. But I can give the House the assurance that, although I prefer voluntary measures for dealing with the problem, I intend to see that the problem is dealt with somehow; and, although I am prepared to give reasonable opportunities for the manufacturers to cooperate with me, as soon as I am satisfied that there is no chance of receiving that co-operation, which I myself think is the preferable method, I shall not hesitate in obtaining the necessary powers to enforce this matter in what I consider to be a really practical manner.

8.33 p.m.

Mrs. TATE: I must admit that I think the Minister's reply has been of a very disappointing nature. He says that he has every possible sympathy with the intention of the Clause, but the first reason that he gave for not accepting it was that it would be difficult of enforcement. That, I think, is a very remark
able reason when we consider that we are going to be asked shortly to pass a Clause to enforce a 30-mile speed limit over miles of this country, which I maintain will be quite impossible of enforcement. Therefore, I think that that argument is a very strange one for the Minister to put forward. In the second place, he said that he intended to consult with motor manufacturing experts. Personally, I think that, if it became the law that motors were not to be sold which were of an undesirable type, the manufacturers would instantly find means of manufacturing the right kind of car. I believe that the industry itself is far more likely to he led to produce the article which it ought to produce by making it the law than by any amount of consultation. Since the Minister has expressed his sympathy with the Clause, although at the same time he has expressed his disapproval of the exact manner in which it is drafted, I think it is a great pity that he himself did not at least move to insert a Clause having this object in a Bill which otherwise has so very little to recommend it.

Major LLOYD GEORGE: In view of the Minister's assurance, for which I thank him, that he will try voluntary cooperation first and that, if that fails, he is determined to get something done—I know that the object that he has in mind is exactly the same as mine—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE1.—(General speed limit of thirty miles per hour in built-up areas.)

8.36 p.m.

Sir W. BRASS: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
I move this Amendment because I feel that the Clause will cause endless trouble and create confusion in every part of the country where an attempt to enforce it is made. The Minister told us on the Second Beading that this question of a speed limit was not a party question at all. He said one could be a good Tory and agree with a test for drivers and a good Socialist and be in favour of a speed limit. I would, therefore, appeal to him to take the Whips off on this occasion and to allow us to have a free Vote in order that the House of Commons may record exactly what it feels. My own view is
that this is a retrograde step. It is proposed that, whenever a motor driver enters an area where there happens to be a system of street lighting on one or both sides of the road, he shall immediately put his foot on the brake, look at his speedometer, and get down to 30 miles an hour regardless entirely of whether the road is wet or dry, whether he is a good or a bad driver, whether he has a light or a heavy car, and whether the brakes are in good order or in bad. He says to the driver, in effect, "Whenever you see a street lamp I do not trust you any longer," and you have immediately to consider reducing your speed and watching for the very happy time when you have got to the end of the street lighting and you can step on the gas and go as fast as you like.
I want to ask hon. Members to imagine themselves driving along a road and finding, as I found when I made a survey not long ago, that 50 per cent. of the length of the road on which they are driving is in a lamp-lit area. I have estimated, from figures given me by the Ministry of Transport, that about 50,000 miles of road will come under this speed limit. I think the Minister has to consider very carefully whether it is possible over such an area to enforce this speed limit. Mr. Morrison realised, and I think he himself realises, that the 20-mile speed limit was unenforceable, and I think the same thing would apply to this limit, because it is far too wide. The Minister has power under the 1930 Act to allow a local speed limit to be put on in any place where the local authority desires it, and, if he wishes to make an experiment, there is no reason why he should not do it under the present law, and there is no need to make it universal. The Minister has ignored altogether the recommendations of the Royal Commission, which recommended against the very thing which he now proposes should be made law. They were asked the specific question whether or not a speed limit should be imposed in a built-up area, and they gave two reasons for not recommending it. They said:
We came to the conclusion that there would be great difficulty in defining built-up areas and, moreover, there are many points of danger on country roads where special caution and slow speed are necessary, but where no question of a built-up area arises.
The Royal Automobile Club and the Automobile Association is against the speed limit. They have circulated a letter stating various reasons why they think it undesirable. I am afraid the Minister is thinking more of the London area than of the bigger and wider areas in the country. I think he would admit that the Department has made no survey of the so-called built-up areas and has no idea of the number of stretches of road which have a lighting system and then have a short period where there is no lighting system, then have another period of lighting system, and so on. I remember telling him in. Committee that I had made a survey of a part of the Brighton Road not far from London. It was worked out with a speedometer marked in tenths of a mile. There were, first of all, 18 miles in a lit-up area. Then there was.8 of a mile outside the lit-up area, after that.5 of a mile, that is, half-a-mile, inside the lit-up area, then.9 of a mile outside the lit-up area—all this was on the main road going from London to Brighton—then there was 4.7 of a mile inside the lit-up area, then two miles outside the lit-up area, then 2.1 miles inside the lit-up area, 2.3 miles outside, and 2.1 miles inside again.
What is going to be the result of all that? People will constantly be looking for street lamps. There are eight different changes from a built-up area to a non-built-up area within 16 miles and, if I had not been very careful in watching the lamps on that occasion, I should never have known whether I was or was not in what is termed in the Bill a built-up area. I assure the House that a very large portion of the road which had no lamps on it had buildings on it, and a large portion of the road which had lamps on it had no buildings on it at all. So that a built-up area is entirely a misnomer. It does not mean a place where there are any buildings. It merely means a place, as described in Clause 1, where there is a system of street lighting. I have also made a survey in my own constituency, and I find that in Lancashire the same sort of thing applies. Anybody driving through from Yorkshire to Lancashire will find that they are constantly going in and out, a mile here and a mile there, half-a-mile here and half-a-mile there, of what are to be termed built-up areas.
How can a driver know whether he is keeping the law or not? He is told that he is not allowed to go more than 30 miles an hour when he sees a street lamp or a system of street lighting. I know that the Minister's answer is that he can decontrol certain areas, but it is ridiculous to think that you can decontrol in 15 or 16 miles 15 or 16 different bits of road where you go into and out of a so-called built-up area. You can decontrol the great West Road for four or five miles if you like and some of the big by-pass roads round London. That you can do quite easily, but you cannot do it outside all the different cities in Lancashire. Directly he begins to try and decontrol these and to include something else my hon. Friend will have to spend his entire time in making arrangements with local authorities to put up small notice boards here and there to say that you are either in or out of a speed limit area. I do not know how he is going to describe it. Is he going to describe it by means of signs attached to a lamp post to say that you must not think it is a lamp post when you see it, or is he going to put some sort of sign on the side of the road with "Thirty miles an hour," or something else written on it, or is he going to step on the gas so that people may know that they have actually got within the 30-mile limit?
My hon. Friend was asked a little while ago it he could say how many villages there were. The Department has not the vaguest idea how many villages will come into the speed limit. It depends upon the local authorities as to whether they want to be included or not in a direction. He does not know how many there will be and how many notices will have to be put up in the villages. If we are to have a speed limit—I do not agree with speed limits—a speed limit in a village is far more important, certainly at even less than 30 miles an hour, than a speed limit over a wide area on a large, open trunk road with a system of street lighting along it. His difficulty is that his definition of a built-up area is really no definition at all. It does not coincide with buildings at all or with what is generally considered to be a built-up area. Consequently, he is going to create the most awful chaos all over the country. He mentioned during the Committee stage that since a speed limit had been intro-
duced in Oxford—or he contended that it was the result of the speed limit—there had not been a single fatal accident in the City of Oxford. I have had a letter from somebody at Oxford whom I do not know, and I do not propose to publish his name, referring to the speed limit in that city. This is what he says:
I should like to express the gratitude which I, along with thousands of others, feel to you for the fight which you have put up for a common sense solution of the problem presented by motor fatalities in Oxford. In Oxford, more than anywhere else, we have been subjected to a noisy handful of fanatics who have made every kind of misrepresentation in their arguments. It is suggested that the number of fatal accidents in Oxford has been reduced since the 30-mile limit has been in force, but what is not stated is the fact that in all the fatal accidents for years and years there has been no allegation of excessive speed. This information comes from the Oxford coroner (Mr. Galpin), who, speaking from memory, thinks that the greatest speed alleged by any hostile witness since the Road Traffic Act became law was 25 miles an hour.
Since my hon. Friend made that particular point about the Oxford 30-mile speed limit—and it is the only 30-mile speed limit in the country at the present time, so it is a good example of what might happen in other places—I have asked him what happened in the year before in order that I might be able to see whether in fact the 30-mile speed limit had prevented accidents in Oxford. He told me that four fatal accidents had occurred during that particular period in the previous year. As a result of his information, I put down a question to the Home Office in order to find out whether any of these particular accidents which happened the year before could in fact have possibly been affected by a 30-mile speed limit, and I found that there was not a single one of them where the vehicle was travelling at 30 miles an hour. They were all travelling at less than 30 miles an hour, and two of them at 10 miles an hour in the rain. I think that that disposes of the suggestion that the 30-mile speed limit in Oxford has prevented any accidents at all.
Most of the accidents in built-up areas are not due to speed. That can easily be proved by looking at the statistics which my hon. Friend has published. Most of the accidents which take place in properly built-up areas, not lamp-lit areas, take place at speeds lower than 30 miles
an hour. The majority of accidents take place at speeds between 10 and 20 miles an hour, and many are due to heavy vehicles, which are subjected already to a, speed limit. The Minister of Transport will no doubt say that the speed is always under-estimated, but in certainly 80 per cent. of the fatal accidents in built-up areas there are independent witnesses to give evidence as to what they see with their own eyes, and they are not likely to bring down the speed at which the accident is supposed to have happened. A great deal too much has been made of the suggestion that the estimates of speeds are wrong. The majority of accidents take place at low rates of speed.
My view is that this speed limit will bring the law into disrepute. For the police to pursue motorists in motor cars or on motor cycles is worse than hiding behind hedges, and far more dangerous; because two cars going at what is supposed to be an excessive speed is not helpful. If one is going too fast and there is another behind going at the same rate it means that two cars are going too fast instead of one. That particular form of trap is not good. I do not think that the Minister of Transport will reduce the number of accidents in built-up areas by this Clause, because the majority of accidents are now due to speeds of less than 30 miles an hour. Indeed, I do not think they are due to speed at all. Speed does enter into the matter in the open areas, and if people driving one from one place to another find that on 50 per cent. of the road they are reduced to a speed of 30 miles an hour, they are very likely to go too fast in other areas where they would usually go at a normal speed, having regard to existing conditions and being decent drivers. Consequently, instead of reducing the number of accidents, the Minister is definitely going to increase them, not in the built-up areas but in the non-built-up areas, because he is going to force people to go far too slowly in the built-up areas, where it is not necessary very often, and make them go faster in the areas where it is possible, but where it may be dangerous to do so.
Another thing which will happen is that a large number of people are going to be prosecuted. He is going to make hundreds and thousands of criminals every year. I made an estimate in Com-
mittee of the number of people who may be prosecuted as a result of these activities. I took the Oxford case as the only example of a 30-mile limit in the country, and in four and a-half months 162 people were prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit. I then estimated the speed limit area as 48,000 miles, and multiplied it by 162, then divided it by 16, which is the extent of the speed limit area in Oxford, and as a result I found that 486,000 people might be prosecuted in the first four and a-half months of the year if the present activities in Oxford are continued in other parts of the country. I do not think it is a good thing for Parliament to start making a lot of criminals and prosecuting thousands upon thousands of people all over the country because they happen to go more than 30 miles an hour where there is street lighting. It is all nonsense. It will mean absolute chaos. It is a perfectly ridiculous suggestion. It will not do the slightest good; it will only annoy a large number of people and do a lot of harm in outside districts, quite apart from the harm it will do to the motor traffic. I appeal to the Minister to allow us to have a free vote on this Clause. It is not a political matter, it has nothing to do with the National Government, it is not a party question, and I appeal to him to take off the Whips and allow us to divide on this according to our conscience.

9.1 p.m.

Sir G. FOX: I beg to second the Amendment, which has been so ably moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass). I think that a speed limit is absolutely unnecessary, partly because the Royal Commission recommended against it and partly because of the difficulties of defining what is a built-up area. The Minister has already got into difficulties on this matter and has had to recommit the Bill, because it is so difficult to put up notices all over the country to say where a speed limit is to start and where it is to end. During the last two or three years a number of towns have applied for a special speed limit of 30 miles an hour, but in every case except Oxford the application has been turned down.

Mr. STANLEY: Will the hon. Member say what towns, except Oxford, have applied for a 30-mile speed limit?

Sir G. FOX: I think that 11 applications have been made for a special speed limit.

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member said a 30-mile speed limit.

Sir G. FOX: I think that 11 applications have been made for a special speed limit and most of them were turned down. Suddenly, this Bill is introduced, and we find that there is to be a universal speed limit of 30 miles an hour over some 50,000 miles of road. The idea must have come to the Minister of Transport himself who, unfortunately, is not a practical motorist. I believe that if my hon. Friend was the driver of a motor car himself he would realise that this Clause is not going to solve the problem. It may be said that it will only take two or three minutes longer to go through Oxford, what does it matter? I agree that it is not very much, but if you have the same experience continuously for 30 miles all round London and along parts of our arterial roads it will slow down traffic a great deal. In 1896 there was a speed limit of 20 miles an hour and in 1934, 38 years later, we are going to have a uniform limit of 30 miles an hour.
To my mind, it is repressive legislation against motorists. We cannot, even if we wish, put the clock back. We have all seen the great advance of speed in the air and other methods of transport, yet to-day we find that we are asked to slow down the traffic on the roads. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe said that many of these accidents do not take place at excessive speeds. I have part of the Report of the Royal Commission on Transport before me, and according to the figures supplied to the chairman of the London Traffic Advisory Committee 57 per cent. of the fetal accidents in London took place at speeds lower than 10 miles an hour. Motorists throughout the country feel that these big arterial roads and by-passes have been built at great cost—something like £35,000 a mile—and with money which has been found by taxing motorists, motor cars, and petrol, and people have gone in for a policy of ribbon building. I do not blame the Minister of Transport for that so much, because I think it is his predecessors who have allowed it to grow, who have caused a great deal of this trouble. It is, however, essential that this octapus of ribbon building should
be stopped at the earliest possible moment One of the reasons why the number of road fatalities is increasing is the fact that more and more people are coming to live on the main roads throughout the country.
When we have a speed limit of 30 miles an hour, what will be the result? I think that many people when they are driving at 30 miles an hour will think it is perfectly safe and that they need not bother very much, and then, with people getting careless and not keeping a good lookout, we shall perhaps see many more accidents. It may be there will be the awful noise on the road from wireless sets in the cars and motorists going at 30 miles an hour. It is suggested that because you have a universal speed limit of 30 miles an hour, you will accelerate all traffic automatically, but I do not think this will be the case, because you will still have motor vehicles which will travel at 25 or 20 miles an hour, and it will take quite a lot of accelerating to pass them. If you are only allowed to go 30 miles an hour, it will mean greater efforts to overtake them before you get to the next standard, with the result that there will be great congestion and long lines of traffic in all built-up areas.
Again, we shall see everyone looking out for speed traps. We all know the ridiculous position of coming up behind a motor omnibus in a motor car and seeing the conductor ringing the bell to let the driver know that there is a car behind, and when he sees it is not a police car the omnibus goes on fast again. In the same way you will see motorists trying to watch if they are being trapped, whether there is a speed "cop" coming up behind or a trap on the side of the road, and perhaps a fellow swinging a stick with white paint at the end, and when it stops you have got into the beginning or end of a trap, I should like the Minister to say whether he is going to exempt roads like the Great West Road and other arterial roads around London. I have no doubt his answer will be, "I cannot do that, because I shall leave it to the local authorities to decide." I believe the local authorities will not dare to decontrol any of these roads, because the feeling may be such that if anyone is run over, it will be said that so-and-so voted
for the decontrol of that road, and at the next local election many people will vote against him. I think this idea of a 30-miles speed limit is completely retrograde and will not solve the problem.

9.10 p.m.

Sir C. OMAN: At the risk of being considered by the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) one of a small gang of fanatics, I must explain the position of affairs in Oxford, of which he seems to be lamentably ignorant, though he has apparently been consulting certain people, who have obviously given him coloured information suitable to what he wished to prove.

Sir W. BRASS: I did not consult them at all. That letter was sent to me without any request whatsoever.

Sip C. OMAN: I thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman said he had been consulting Mr. Galpin.

Sir W. BRASS: No.

Sir C. OMAN: Then how was he able to quote him?

Sir W. BRASS: I did not. I quoted from a letter sent to me from Oxford without being asked for at all, which mentioned that particular gentleman's name in it.

Sir C. OMAN: Then it was secondhand hearsay information. The accidents in Oxford, with which I have been keeping very carefully in touch, being a resident in central Oxford, have, with one exception, all taken place on the broad roads coming down into the centre of the city, not in the congested centre itself, where, if any motorist were to move at the rate of 30 miles an hour, it would be only a question of whether he could be sent to Wormwood Scrubs or to Broadmoor, because, clearly, anybody who tries to go 30 miles an hour there must be either a criminal or a lunatic. There has been in the last few days for the first time since the new regulations came in a fatal accident in Oxford, and it was one of the kind that wrings one's heart. It was the case of a little girl going to school alone for the first time—her mother could not accompany her—who was run over in one of the outskirts of Oxford by a motor car, which was, apparently, not going at a very great pace. I give that
to the hon. and gallant Member, that there has been a fatal accident since.

Sir W. BRASS: There is another one, if my hon. Friend likes to have it.

Sir C. OMAN: In the last few years our local accidents nearly all occurred on the outskirts of the place, and in circumstances which suggest to me that these broad roads, with hardly a refuge or an island in them, are very well scheduled under the 30 miles rule—I should like to have seen them under a 20 miles rule—numerous cases have occurred. For example, I am asked to believe that in the following cases the slayer was not going at any great pace. Take the case of an undergraduate who killed a policeman at the other end of the Cowley road and was next heard of at Aberystwyth, having covered the distance between the two points in an extraordinarily short time. Take the case of a party after a ball who ran at dawn over two carpenters coming into early work in Oxford. In those two case?, whatever evidence was brought to the contrary, do you believe they were crawling along at 10 miles an hour? I think it is in the highest degree improbable. Clearly, in both those cases, they were young and irresponsible people. Take the case of two elderly ladies run down in the outskirts of Oxford, trying to cross broad arterial roads with no island or refuge to help them.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Are there no footpaths?

HON. MEMBERS: Not across the road.

Sir C. OMAN: You cannot cross the road by sticking to the footpaths, and the only occasion on which I ever remember a person attempting to do so was when an undergraduate got hold of the railings outside the Radcliffe Library and endeavoured to cross the road by sticking to the footpath and going round the library, but having engaged in that exercise for some time he found himself where he had started, the footpath being circular. The cases which I am quoting have all as I say occurred on the outskirts of Oxford and a considerable distance from the congested centre where nobody would think of travelling at 30 miles an hour. I cannot see how anybody can deny that there is a lot of reckless driving in the outskirts of towns. I
have witnessed it myself. I think personally that 30 miles an hour is far too high a speed in such regions and that 20 miles an hour would be quite sufficient. However, that is neither here or there. The Minister in the Bill has fixed it at 30 miles an hour and I would rather have a rule of 30 miles an hour than a rule evolved in the brain of the individual motorist, the rule of what he would consider to be sensible and proper. That is what the proposer of this Amendment and his friends would like to see introduced as the governing principle in connection with this matter.
The greater number of motorists are very decent courteous people. I owe a great deal to the kindness of many of them. I am accustomed to go about in motors a good deal. But a certain proportion of the motoring fraternity are really enemies of society. I have been in personal danger and I have seen fatal accidents arising from what I can only describe as the abominable recklessness of certain motorists. In one case, a butcher boy driving a little motor vehicle, coming out of a village entry, charge into the motor in which I was travelling on an arterial road. In a second case two young ladies with their heads close together, doubtless discussing some secret, drove out of a private road leading from a large house and charged into the vehicle in which I was being conveyed. I happened to be carrying at that moment the Amesbury Psalter, one of the most famous manuscripts in Great Britain, the value of which is priceless, and I rather resented being run down by a pair of irresponsible girls who were chattering when they ought to have been looking at the road. What would have happened to that priceless book if they had succeeded in knocking me silly and sending the Psalter flying I do not know.
In a third case of which I was a witness, some idiotic young people who were apparently late for lunch tried to cut round a char-a-banc at a curve in the road. While their car and the char-a-banc were occupying three-quarters of the road, a large travelling car came round under the hedge, on its proper side, and knocked the other machine to pieces. The driver and the girl beside him were killed and the two people behind were badly shaken. There is a certain class of young
and irresponsible motorists who are a public danger. There is a second class which constitutes a public danger, and that is the class of speed maniacs. One of these told me that there was nothing to compare with gliding on an aeroplane but rushing at 60 or 70 miles an hour down an arterial road. This motorist told me he had travelled from Lincoln to Oxford in an hour and a quarter. I can hardly believe it, but that is an example of the idea of speed which some of these people have. It is such people who have to be dealt with.
I have no indictment to make against the general fraternity of motorists, but I must say that I have always found them singularly deficient in what I would call natural indignation against the proportion of motorists who share with them the love of rapid motion and who indulge it recklessly. I have never heard from motorists generally a proper condemnation either of the class of young idiotic frivolous people or the class of speed maniacs. Indeed there seems to be a, certain amount of sympathy with the speed maniac, no doubt largely induced by the newspapers, who seem to regard it as a fine and laudable thing to go at ridiculous speeds. I blame the newspapers a great deal in connection with this matter. Any system that will deal with that portion of the motoring fraternity which is a public nuisance and a public danger I am ready to support, even though it should only impose the mildest form of control. This Bill does something, though not very much, to make it a little easier for the pedestrians to cross our roads in safety. Therefore I sincerely praise the Minister for what he has done. I only wish he had made his Bill a little more stringent.

9.22 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: For many years the Minister of Transport resisted the granting of a speed limit to any town in the country. He eventually granted one of 30 miles an hour in Oxford. He granted it to protect the fossilised buildings—not the dons. It was entirely for the protection of the buildings, and, although it may have bad reactions which are interesting as regards the number of accidents, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) has told us to-night that accidents, in spite of the limit, have occurred
on the open broad road. I cannot understand why he of all people should want this Bill. Under the old Act he has the benefit that he wants, and I think it is up to the Minister to prove to us why the old plan was never put into operation and why we want this new one. There was the power to impose a speed limit of 30 miles an hour or less where a case could be made out for it.
The reason why I do not like a general speed limit of this character is that whatever limit you choose must be wrong. My hon. Friend has said that the idea of going through the crowded parts of Oxford at 30 miles an hour is suicidal and ridiculous. Of course it is, but there are areas outside in which 30 miles an hour is dawdling, and there is just a narrow part where 30 miles an hour would be the correct speed. In London I do not suppose the ordinary motorist travels at more than 30 miles an hour for more than 1½ per cent. of the time. I must say that I should like the Minister to have gone step by step in this matter. It seems to me that we are being rushed into this business by a Press campaign as a result of which the Minister has said "We must do something." Then he introduces the 30-mile an hour limit, and we rush in where other countries fear to tread. When we come to deal with the question of accidents with all the sentimental capital that can be made out of it, the House of Commons "goes very groggy" on legislation. It is very weak when hon. Members quote a case of a little girl rushing into the road and being run over. There, besides the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), we have feet of clay.
I am sure that everybody will agree that we motorists are as law-abiding as most citizens. Yet we find that of the offences that come before the police courts of this country no less than 45 per cent. are motor offences. By the introduction of this Bill we shall add to that number enormously. It is not to the good of everybody to have nothing but a lot of small technical offences. The trouble with the old Act was not in the Act itself but in the administration of it. Never was a dangerous driver dealt with as severely as he should have been. The thing which hurts the casual cad driver is to take his licence away—nothing else. It does not matter fining him. For some unearthly reason there has been an extraordinary
dislike up and down the country of taking licences away. If it be a paid driver with a lorry, there are always sentimental considerations, but I do not know why they do not take the licence away from a private man. It is upon the persons who drive dangerously that you should jump with all the severity of the law. Under this proposal, however, he is the very man who escapes, because he can drive fast in the crowded area of a town where it is quite impossible to trap, and yet be cunning enough to go slowly on the outskirts, whereas the ordinary motorist who is painstaking and considerate will have gone carefully through the middle of the town, and when he comes into the open, just as he is speeding up, if he does not look at his speedometer, he will be caught.
We are introducing another kind of law, and it will be a law which nobody will obey. It will be exactly like the old 20-mile-an-hour speed limit, in which you came before the court and were fined by the magistrate, and knew perfectly well that on his way back to his lunch he would break the same law. That is a bad type of thing to introduce as a law in these days.
I want to quote a figure or two, because I think that it would have been better from everybody's point of view had we had before the introduction of this Bill an opportunity of studying the Report on Fatal Road Accidents and arguing on it. Nevertheless, we have had the Second Reading, and we have actually passed this Clause upstairs, without our being able to see the report. That was not the Minister's fault, but it was unfortunate, for the report contains a strong case against this 30-mile-an-hour speed limit. Take the difference between the cars which are taxed as private cars and the goods vehicles, which already have a speed limit. There are 1,200,000 private cars against 440,000 goods vehicles—three times the number of private cars. Yet we find that the fatal accidents caused by the private cars are less than those caused by the vehicles which already have a speed limit. This fact does not justify us in rushing in and imposing a 30-mile-an-hour speed limit on a class of vehicles which is singularly free from accidents. I notice that no less than 62 per cent. of the total accidents occurred at under 20 miles
an hour. That is so extraordinary that the report has to draw attention to the fact that in many cases the person who has been killed has been unable to give evidence. That is obvious; on the other hand, one has to remember that these accidents mostly occur in urban areas where there should be witnesses.
This is a point of logic which I cannot follow. For years before the introduction of the original Bill we had a speed limit of 20 miles an hour, a dangerous anachronism and one of the most ridiculous provisions that ever sullied our Statute Book. It was difficult to know what to do, and Mr. Morrison took it off. That was a very brave experimental measure, but what happened? Cars increased enormously in number, but the number of fatal accidents went down from the time he took the speed limit off until the present day. I cannot understand the logic which changes the law at the present day, not to 20 miles an hour but back to 30 miles an hour. I should have liked to see much tightening up of dangerous driving from the point of view of detection—a difficult thing to do—and from the point of view of offences. But the Minister has attacked the thing from the lazy point of view. We are not going to condemn the man for dangerous driving, which is the real offence, but to attack him on a perfectly technical ground, for speed and nothing else.
My hon. Friend the Minister said he was going to introduce a new Highway Code. That should be the law of England; that is what we want from a scientific point of view. Although the problem is difficult, we want a code which everybody can understand, motorists, pedestrians and everyone, and, if someone does not play the game, then he must be punished. It is, however, a difficult thing to do and not a thing which can be rushed or solved quickly. I object to this Clause. I do not believe it will save one single life. I cannot help believing that, if you say by a Statute that a motorist can go at 30 miles an hour, you create the impression among all motorists that it is legal to go at 30 miles an hour wherever they are. It is true that you can drive dangerously at 10 miles an hour, but on the open road you will go up to 30 miles an hour because you are allowed to do it. The limit will cause bitterness and that
hatred between ordinary civilians and policemen which was growing up to such an alarming extent under the ridiculous trapping that went on under the old system.
This is a very retrograde step, and it disappoints me that such a Measure should be placed on the Statute Book by a Ministry and by a Minister for whom I have such affection. If it had not been for the hon. Gentleman and his own personal charm, he would have had a much worse time in Committee. Here, however, we have Conservative Minister, young, who we thought was full of promise, imagination, dash and grip, but when he comes up to face one of the great problems of the day, what does he do? He looks into the past for a solution, and instead of the old 20 miles an hour invented by our grandfathers, he has just added 10 miles an hour. Tell it in Gath, publish it in the streets of Ascalon that a cadet member of one of our great families has changed his motto to "Back, Stanley, back."

Mr. STANLEY: May I ask if the hon. and gallant Member has changed his motto to "Charge, Lanehester, charge?"

9.36 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I must congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Braba-zon) on the moderation which was inspired by the charm of the Minister. I wonder what he would have said if there had been a Liberal in the position of Minister or an unfortunate Socialist representative? He says that in his belief if this Bill be passed and this speed limit is established, not a single life will be saved. I am sure he holds that view with sincerity. He speaks with a long experience. He has from the beginning been associated with road transport and has in that respect a very distinguished and conspicuous record. If this Clause stands and the limit of 30 miles an hour is put into force, and if his prophecy that there will be no reduction in the number of deaths and in the lamentable number of accidents on the road is realised, would he not agree that no one will support a continuance of this restriction and that there will be a demand for some other reforms?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: The point was repeatedly made in Committee
that we are including two pieces of legislation in this Bill, one to repress speed and the other to deal with the pedestrian, and it will be difficult to know which causes any amelioration that there may be. If there is an amelioration under this Bill, we shall not be able to tell whether it is due to the introduction of the speed limit or to the regulation of the pedestrian.

Mr. FOOT: I had not the advantage of being on the Committee upstairs. I sympathise a great deal with what the hon. and gallant Member says as to the necessity of checking dangerous driving whatever may be done under this Bill, which is not intended to be a substitute for that restriction. I hope that will be done by the magistrates and the courts throughout the country, whatever is done so far as the establishment of the speed limit is concerned. Is it suggested that simply because we are establishing a speed limit of 30 miles an hour in built-up areas, the magistrates will restrict their repression of dangerous driving? It is hoped that whatever they can do in that direction will be done, with the added and much more severe and hated penalty of removing licences. The whole purpose of this Clause is to reduce the speed of driving upon the roads of this country. Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that it will not have—not immediately, perhaps, but very soon—an effect in a general reduction of speed generally?
I cannot get out of my mind that a very constantly recurring element in accidents is the speed of the cars. Since the last Debate my experience has been that of most other Members of knowing in our immediate neighbourhood of someone with whom we are in close acquaintance being killed as the result of a motor accident. I know that in these cases speed has been a constantly recurring factor. The hon. and gallant Member tells us that travelling at 30 miles an hour is dawdling, but what would he regard as being the ordinary speed upon the roads of this country if 30 miles an hour is dawdling? Hon. Members may say it depends on the car, but if a car is dawdling at 30 miles an hour and travelling at a reasonable speed at 40, I say there are big risks at travelling at that rate. I drive a car as much as
most Members of the House. I am de-dendent on the use of a car when I am at home if I have to do the ordinary work of my profession. I have motored on the roads in practically all the counties of this country, so that I am not speaking simply from hearsay, but from knowledge as a driver myself. In travelling at what we are told now is to be regarded as a reasonable speed of 40 miles an hour, everyone knows that the driver is dependent upon any number of chances not only in his own driving but in accidents that may happen to others. A man may be going with extreme care and slowly, and there is the skid of another car over which he has no control, or there is the bursting of a tyre, or some mechanical defect.
I have watched with personal care since the last Debate, when the hon. and gallant Member was inclined to deride a remark I made that almost every journey involves touch and go. Since that time, I was going from the station to my home in Cornwall one day when I passed a pony on the road, and my attention was called to it. I read in the paper next day that an hour later a driver of a motor cycle with someone riding on the pillion collided at that point with a stray pony and one man was injured and another killed. Such are the possibilities on the road. I have no doubt that the motor cyclist was driving with care, but in that very accident, which happened after I was derided in this House the element of speed entered, as it has done in one case after another since the last Debate. For instance, in my own county only a week or two ago a man carrying on his work in making a white line under the direction of the county council to mark a dangerous road, with a flag up a short distance away as a warning of danger, was killed by a motor lorry which came along at too high a speed in the circumstances.

Sir W. BRASS: Lorries are subject to a speed limit.

Mr. FOOT: Whether that is so or not, my point is that speed enters too frequently into the causes of accidents.

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose—

Mr. FOOT: I understand that when the French Congress was established a rule was set up that no more than four
Members should address the House at the same time. Those of us who use the roads know the temptation of a fast car. If a car can go easily at 40 or 50 miles an hour there is a temptation, I use a faster car than formerly, and it becomes a temptation. It may be an inconvenience to drivers of a car to go more slowly, but they should allow themselves more time. If we have an engagement in the north of England and have to come back to the south, we must reckon whether we ought to take more time for the journey. That is an inconvenience which ought not to be suffered if it is not going to advantage human life, and if after this restriction in speed there are still 20 people being killed every day and so many-hundreds being injured—well, we have gone on the process of trial and error, and some other course may have to be adopted. But there are many in the House and in the country, just as sincere as the hon. and gallant Member, who believe that lives will be saved—not many perhaps, but some lives—and that we shall not put upon the community the colossal economic burden arising from people having to live the rest of their lives maimed and dependent upon their relatives and upon the attention of their neighbours and the relief that can be given them by the community. If this Clause means that only a few lives are saved and there is a reduction of a few scores every week in the number of those maimed it will have been an experiment well worth making. But we are not legislating for all time, and if the hon. and gallant Member is right in his predictions we can reverse our policy. But there are some of us who will stake our reputations upon the fact that there will be a reduction. He will stake his reputation the other way. We have to see how things work.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: That is gambling.

Mr. FOOT: Let hon. Members watch what is happening in their neighbourhoods and see how often speed is a factor in what happens. We cannot accept what the man involved in an accident says about his speed. It has become a matter for derision in the courts that a man always under-estimates the speed at which he is travelling. No county court judge accepts the statements as to speed made by the two parties in a motoring
case. I have had some experience of these cases. Everyone knows that the plaintiff in a motor car accident case puts the speed of the car too high and the defendant puts it too low. The difficulty of arriving at the true speed at which a car was travelling is a matter of derisive comment by every county court judge.
I think this Measure has the approval of the country generally. There was criticism after it was introduced and on Second Reading, but, generally speaking, I think it has the approval of the country. It has the approval of the great pedestrian population. The hon. and gallant Member spoke of the danger of bitter-feeling arising between the police and the motorist. Has he thought of the other real danger—of a bitter feeling arising between the pedestrian and the motorist? Take the case of a man who has had brought upon his family the highest calamity which can befall it, through the carelessness of a motorist. I sometimes wonder that in those circumstances the people of this country have taken things as gently as they have done. If it had not been that people generally have now become motorists, through riding in char-a-bancs, there would have been something like a serious social outcry, a very bitter outcry, on the part of those who belong to families which have suffered these losses. Let us avoid that bitterness between the motorist and the pedestrian. Let us give this Measure a fair trial, over not too long a period, but a reasonable period.
Let hon. Members watch what is happening in their own areas and see whether the reduced speed does not save a few lives during the week, and also save a few people from being maimed. If the prophecies upon which the Minister has relied in introducing his proposals are falsified I think he will be the first to acknowledge the fact, and the hon. and gallant Member will be able to come to this House and say, "I told you so!" If this method fails then we must find some other way, because I suppose we are all agreed that the present losses cannot be tolerated. All the advantages of transport are not worth the loss. We have been able to conquer the air and we live in a generation which is, I suppose, the most wonderful generation in history as regards the application of science to industry, but the advantages
of transport which we enjoy, if put on one side of the scale, do not compensate for the misery, the wretchedness and the suffering which have arisen from the deaths and maimings that go on from day to day and will go on to-morrow, and the day after to-morrow, and the day after that, and every day while our Debates are taking place. Some means must be found to deal with the situation. I think this is an honest experiment. Naturally we are divided upon it. It is not a popular thing for any Minister to do, but he has brought in this Measure in pursuance of his desire to secure an improvement, and I think he is entitled to support against this Amendment. If he is wrong let it be shown by experience.
In one further word I would like to express my complete agreement with the hon. and gallant Member about the responsibility that rests upon those who have to administer the law in the courts. Even in what may seem to the man in the street to be the most glaring cases one cannot in these days get a manslaughter verdict. The police do not prefer a charge of manslaughter unless they think the case is very clear. They are influenced by what is happening in the courts. Any lawyer will say that there is extreme difficulty in getting a conviction, even in circumstances which would ordinarily point to manslaughter. Juries are very reluctant to convict, because of the hardship that a conviction involves. In many cases magistrates will not impose the penalty that ought to be imposed, because they do not like to sentence a man to unemployment. I hope that what has been said to-night will show that it is the opinion of this House that a responsibility rests upon all who have to administer the law in the courts, making them realise that while being lenient to a man they may be unjust to the community. The man who is left with his licence and his car when he has shown himself indifferent to the rules that must be established if our roads are to be safe is left with the possibility of maiming other people who are entitled to exercise their liberty. I ask the House to support the Minister in an unpopular step but in a step which, I think, is essential if we are to get rid of this scandal of allowing, day after day, a great number of our fellow sub-
jects to have these cruel wrongs inflicted upon them.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. J. REID: I have no liking for this particular Clause, but, nevertheless, I am not going to support the Amendment. It is quite clear that any plan put forward can be riddled in argument. I have not yet heard of a single plan that cannot be shown to be unlikely to succeed. On the other hand, something has got to be done. The public will not tolerate the continuance of the present situation, and rightly so, and therefore I say that if the Minister comes forward, with the authority of the Government, and says that his Department thinks that this is the best plan, though I may not altogether agree, I say, "Let this plan have a chance, let it have a run for a year or two years." If it turns out to do some good I am sure that even those who are most strongly in favour of this Amendment will be glad that they were defeated to-night. If, on the other hand, it turns out not to be any good, then I am certain that the Minister will have sufficient courage to come forward next year and say: "I tried this because I thought it was the best. It has not worked, and we have to do something else." It is on that basis I think the Bill should go through in its present form.
I do not think that this experiment by itself will succeed. More is necessary. Two more things are necessary, at least. One is the enforcement not only of the speed limit but of the existing law in regard to dangerous driving. The second is that pedestrians must learn that they also have their duties as road users. Until these things are done I feel certain that this experiment will prove to be abortive, but if the speed limit gets a fair trial on the lines I have suggested and if pedestrians also have to suffer inconvenience, just as the motorists have, in the common interests of safety, I think there is a very fair chance of very considerable results being achieved within a comparatively short space of time.
The real crux of all these plans is not drawing out an ideal plan, but how you are going to enforce it? It is there that I have the most doubt about the present proposals. I think we are all agreed, even the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass), will agree, that if this Bill can be enforced it is well
worth a trial. Perhaps some hon. Members may not agree with that view, but I think the great bulk of the House will. The question is, can it be enforced? In my view it cannot be enforced by traps, and for this reason that the trap will not work unless you have a comparatively short piece of road and comparatively little traffic on it. One always found in the old days that traps were put in the safest possible places. What we want to do is to trap the man who is going along twisty roads, among a lot of traffic, at over 30 miles an hour. That can only be done by mobile police. I think that the crux of the whole question is whether the Minister has funds and experienced people and can appoint large corps of traffic police who will travel in speedy vehicles, preferably in plain clothes.
One has only to go about in London or any other city to see at a glance the man who is the dangerous driver. It is true that very often juries will not convict in the case of an accident, and the reason is that very often the piece of driving which causes the accident is not the really dangerous piece of driving. The really dangerous driver does not always happen to cause an accident on the occasion when he is observed. What we want is not necessarily to charge the man who has been involved in an accident. Far better let that go for the moment and charge the man who has been observed in an act of dangerous driving, whether he has caused an accident or not. If that is going to be done it is essential that you shall have policemen who are primarily motorists and only secondarily policemen. It is essential not that you shall get a policeman and give him a few weeks training in motoring and then turn him on to the roads as a traffic policeman, but that you shall get a motorist, put him through a few weeks training as a policeman and then put him on to the roads as a mobile traffic policeman and as a specialist in traffic. If you can enlist such a corps, and it should be a national corps, of policemen, who are really experienced and in whom the public will have confidence, and if you put them in plain clothes, and in fast cars, you will get results.
You have only to go a couple of miles along any street in London and you will see the dangerous driver, generally driving a secondhand American car. These people go in and out among traffic. Sometimes they have to go slow, but on the
least provocation, because they have good acceleration, they are up to 45 miles an hour before you know where you are. That speed may only last 50 yards before they have to slow down, but it is that short spurt which is dangerous in nine cases out of 10. It is then that we observe the cutting in by the driver who trusts that the other man will put on his brake and that he will not need to do so. If that type of man could learn by experience that the car behind him may be a police car, although he does not know it, and if he is caught once or twice and fined stiffly he will either stop it or his licence can be taken away. It is that type of enforcement that we need. Sometimes you will get him for dangerous driving and sometimes for exceeding the speed limit in a place where he ought not to do it.
I hope that this speed limit will only be enforced in cases where to exceed 30 miles an hour is dangerous. If you enforce it in the safest piece of road you will bring the speed limit into disrepute. If you make a charge of dangerous driving when you know that the man has done something which is dangerous, the public will support you and you will achieve good results, but it obviously needs very careful and tactful handling. You have to have the right type of enforcement and the right man to enforce it. Given those two things and given also that the pedestrians should learn that they have their duties, then the Bill, with this Clause, will turn out to be an exceedingly good Measure.

10.1 p.m.

Mrs. TATE: It is rather startling that the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. J. Reid) has just made a speech in support of the Clause which is far better than any speech I can hope to make against it, because almost every one of his arguments has gone to prove that 30 miles an hour speed limit is not what is wanted to ensure safety on our roads. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) also made a speech of exactly the same type. As we all know, the hon. Member for Bodmin always believes in repressive legislation. Therefore, it is not surprising to find him supporting this Bill, which is seeking to deal with a modern problem in a perfectly obsolete manner. Not only do I think that we are dealing with a modern problem by
obsolete methods, but I think that we are doing something that is extraordinarily dangerous. We have always been considered a law-abiding people, but nothing has been more certainly proved in this world than this, that if you pass into law legislation which the bulk of the people have no regard for, you are going to cease to have a law-abiding people. That has been proved in the United States of America, and I venture to think that it is now going to be proved here by two Bills that have been before the House this week.
The hon. Member for Bodmin said that he hoped that dangerous driving would be noticed and would be punished by the magistrates. That is exactly what will not be done when we pass this Clause into law, because to many magistrates dangerous driving is fast driving, and they have no other idea of dangerous driving. The hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) very clearly illustrated the fact that in his opinion speed in itself was dangerous, but the experienced motorist knows that it is not speed in itself that is dangerous but it is speed in the hands of the wrong person, in the wrong type of car, in the wrong place and in the wrong circumstances. That is not going to be dealt with by the loose, slipshod, lazy method of putting on a speed limit of 30 miles an hour for vast areas of this country, which are extraordinarily badly defined and which will with great difficulty be understood by the general public.
The hon. Member for Bodmin and the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk have said that this should be put forward as an experiment. Personally I consider the toll of the roads far too serious a problem to be played with by experiment. We ought to have brought forward legislation that would do some good instead of slipshod and stupid methods which have been tried before and found perfectly futile. One of the things that has made the roads dangerous is not mere speed, but the mixing up of all sorts and kinds of vehicles on roads which were never built to carry them. The extraordinary thing is that it has been perfectly brought out in the report on fatal accidents that it is not, the private motorist, the driver of the light car, who causes the vast proportion of accidents. The accidents are heavier, not on
the day when there is the largest number of private motorists on the road. Sunday, when there are more light cars on the road than on any other day, is the day on which the number of accidents is less. What causes accidents is heavy congestion, and the mixture of heavy vehicles that ought never to have been put on the reads; bicycles, driven very often without the proper kind of light or when too many of them are ridden abreast; and the putting into the hands of men who are not qualified to drive them cars capable of very high speed.
The Minister has at present every power that he can require for putting on a speed limit in areas where it has been proved that a limit would be of benefit, and he has not used that power. We have a right to demand that large sums of money should have been spent on making our roads safer. That could have been done if we had in every place insisted on large and adequate footpaths, on special tracks for cyclists, and on preventing the wrong type of man having a car which is capable of high speed. That is what we want. We want to keep off the roads the dangerous driver. The hon. Member for Falkirk also said that what he believed would lead to safety would be a large force of experienced motor police. Every motorist will bear out that statement. But there is nothing in Clause 1 to ensure that we are to have that, not a word. That is what we want. Everyone of us knows that in the courts at the present time you cannot get sufficient conviction for dangerous driving unless there has been an accident. Why? Because you have not got the right type of police dealing with motoring cases, or the type of magistrates judging them who really understand what are the problems of the motorist.
I think it is a tragedy that the House of Commons should sit in this year of Grace 1934 and pass a piece of legislation that is absolutely obsolete, that will never deal with the problem with which it ought to deal. No one is keener on speed limits being imposed in certain places than I am, but I would never impose a 30 miles an hour limit in dangerous places. That speed is far too high. We are passing a Bill which is futile and stupid, and a Bill which is not going to lead to safety. The hon. Member for Bodmin says, "Make the experiment, and if it fails do something else." What
an hon. Member with the type of mind of the hon. Member for Bodmin would do he fails to say, unless it is to have a speed limit of 10 miles an hour or to abolish motor cars altogether. One good thing is coming out of this Bill, and that is that it will make every sane person take to the air.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. RADFORD: I am not a great user of the roads, but during 25 years' experience as a motorist I have found that accidents are not due so much to cars going at over 30 miles an hour on reasonably wide roads as to motorists cutting in and cutting across corners and taking corners too fast. All those offences are offences against the present motoring law. As an hon. Friend said, with the use of additional mobile police in plain clothes and with more active prosecutions, those offences could be cut down. There is one effect that the 30 miles an hour limit in the so-called built-up areas will have, and it has not been much considered by the House. I do not do as much motoring as my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass). The road I am most familiar with is one in the Manchester area, where I live, 14 miles out. I will take that as an example to show that this 30-miles limit in the built-up areas may do as much harm as good. If one goes out from Manchester on the road that I traverse the first six or eight miles constitute a genuinely built-up area, and no one would contemplate going more than 30 miles an hour at any point. Twenty miles an hour would be quite fast enough.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) happens to be beside me. The road I speak of is the road to Macclesfield. One passes through a village known as Cheadle, and then one travels along a stretch of wide safe highway, the main highway to the South. It is as safe a highway for motoring as it is possible to conceive. It is not one of the new arterial roads; it is the old main road to the South. On one side there is a wide footpath and on the other side a wide grass verge. There are no houses along the road, but there is street lighting along it, and that therefore makes it a built-up area. The whole of the way out for 14 miles to where I live constitutes a built-up area. At a point
between Wilmslow and Macclesfield the street lighting ends. From there, on the main highway between those two old towns, the road is unlit. There will be no speed limit on this part, which is an infinitely more dangerous part of the road.
It is a road which makes a nice circular tour for motorists on summer evenings. I can assure the House that even a really cautious motorist, one who would be dear to the heart of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), would drive faster on the so-called built-up area than he would on that stretch of road from Wilmslow to Macclesfield, which is without any speed limit. There it is a much narrower road and a winding road. There are farm labourers' cottages here and there, and there are farms opening on to the road, and it is a road where motorists with any regard for decency would drive slowly and with caution. But what will happen under Clause 1? The motorists will come out on summer evenings and at the weekends. They will be compelled to keep down to a maximum speed of 30 miles an hour through the safe broad highway, and they will at last come to the point where they will say, "Oh, now we are clear of the street lighting." Then, freed from the restraint which they have suffered, they will probably let themselves go, on a road which is infinitely less fit for fast motoring than the road where their speed was definitely limited to 30 miles an hour.
I was astounded to hear the statistics quoted by the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe relative to the speed at which accidents have happened. It seems that most of them took place at 10 miles an hour. Those motor cars must have been run into from the back, because they were going so slowly. I am sure that the Minister is anxious to do anything that lies in his power to reduce accidents, but 30 miles an hour in built-up areas will have to be subjected to so many exceptions at the request of individual localities as to cause tremendous confusion. I would like to ask the Minister whether I am right in assuming that it is under Section 46 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, that, with his permission, localities can secure special speed limits for their areas?

Mr. STANLEY: indicated assent.

Mr. RADFORD: If that is so, has he not already got the necessary powers in his hands, upon application by county councils, county boroughs or cities who know their own local requirements? Surely, with the powers that already exist under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, the whole country could be dealt with seriatim; each area could make its request to the Minister, and he, through his officials, could investigate the requests. All that can already be done under the provisions of the 1930 Act.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: In replying to the discussion on the one really controversial point in the Bill, I would ask hon. Members to remember that Clause 1 is not the whole of the Bill, and that even those who take the strongest objection to Clause 1 find in the rest of the Bill a good deal that may help in this problem. I never expected for one moment that it would be possible to introduce a Measure of this kind without receiving a good deal of criticism. As I expected, that criticism has divided itself into two entirely distinct kinds. There is the kind which is made by a certain number of motorists, motoring organisations, and motoring papers, and which are based, quite frankly, on the feeling that nothing whatsoever ought to be done to inconvenience or in any way to hamper the motorists.
I do not know if hon. Members saw in one of the newspapers the other day a letter which was a supreme example, compressed into a very short space, of every fallacy that it is possible to use in opposition to this Clause. The first statement was that it was a well-known fact that the real danger to pedestrians was slow-moving traffic. That is like saying that the Australians cannot play slow bowling. Apparently, pedestrians are unable to cope with slow-moving traffic, and that what they appreciate, from the point of view of their own security, is the utmost speed. The next fallacy—one which I am sure no hon. Member would ever use—is that you must not do this because it is going to hamper the sale of motor cars. I am sure that no hon. Member who thought that this was a remedy for our terrible problem would be deterred by the effect that it would have on the manufacture and sale of motors. The fact is that although since the end of March the motoring public have known
what to expect in this way, there has been no falling off in the enormous increase in the sale of cars. As the third fallacy, having said that it was for him to drive very fast, he went on to say that there were a very great number of drivers who ought not to be on the road at all. That one document, I think, contains all the fallacies of which the interested motorist could make use in attacking this Bill.
On the other hand, there is a different kind of criticism—the criticism of the motorist who quite sincerely wishes to see something done to solve this problem, and who is perfectly prepared to submit himself to a certain amount of inconvenience if he sees that it is going to lead to a reduction in the number of these accidents. Probably every Member of the House has received a copy of a paper circulated by a body called, I think, the Motor Legislation Committee, setting out its reasons against the Bill; and as I thought that the other document was the perfect example of the kind of criticism which one is entitled to ignore, so I thought that this was a good example of the kind of criticism which one has got to meet and to answer. I feel that every speech made in the House to-night against the Clause has been animated by that kind of critical sense, and not by a desire simply as motorists, which most of us are, to evade any restriction which may be inconvenient, but with a real doubt as to whether the result of this Clause is going to be for the benefit of road users, and a perfect readiness to accept whatever inconvenience it may entail if once they are assured that benefit will flow from it.
A great deal of play has been made with the fact that the Royal Commission on Transport decided against the proposal in this Clause. I notice, however, that no hon. Member who refers to that decision adds at the same time the additional fact that the chairman of the Royal Commission has altered his views, and made a statement in the Press the other day that he was in favour of a speed limit. Apart from that, I would point out to hon. Members that the decision of the Royal Commission was not taken on the ground that it would not be a good thing if motor cars could be made to go no more than 30 miles an hour in a built-up area. Their refusal of this particular
remedy was based upon the practical difficulties of its enforcement, and I do not disguise for a minute that I feel that its enforcement is difficult, that the definition is difficult; but I feel that the difficulties are not insuperable, and I do not think we ought to allow difficulties of that kind to stand in the way of a proposal if we sincerely think that it is going to result in a reduction of the loss of life. Let me deal first of all, therefore, with the difficulties of practical enforcement.
Naturally, hon. Members who are opposed to this Clause exaggerate, as they are quite entitled to exaggerate, the area in which such difficulties are going to occur. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass), who moved the Amendment, referred to the 40,000 miles, I think it is, of built-up roads, and then he went on to detail the difficulties which may arise, as if those are difficulties applicable to the whole of that immense area. Of course they are not. The difficulties are all fringe difficulties. If you take the great area of London, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) said, all through the middle nobody is in any doubt as to whether they are in a built-up area or not. There can be no question whatsoever of the motorist not knowing whether he is subject to the speed limit or whether he is not. My hon. and gallant Friend shakes his head even at that mild statement, but I would suggest that even he, when driving down Piccadilly, would not really have very much difficulty in realising that he was in an area where the speed was restricted by this Clause. The difficulties—and they are admitted difficulties—are fringe difficulties. One cannot ignore the fact that over great masses of these built-up areas no such difficulties will arise at all.
One argument put up against this to which I do not attach a very great deal of importance is a psychological one. It is said, first of all, that it will never be possible to enforce this, because it will irritate the motorist so much that he will deliberately disobey the law. I do not believe that some hon. Members who have spoken to-night on those lines are not representative of the 3,000,000 who have driving licences and presumably, therefore, at some time drive cars on the
road. They are representative of a small class of owners of powerful, well-looked-after cars of great braking capacity, experienced drivers who have very much more opportunity of driving than the great majority and who are, therefore, prepared, and I think able, to take greater risks than the majority. If they tell me that the majority of these 3,000,000 people are really going to think it is an impossible hardship upon them that they must not drive more than 30 miles an hour in a built-up area, I would ask them to go down to any of the main arterial roads around London and drive the whole time at 35 miles an hour and see what a very large proportion of cars they will pass even at that speed. The idea that the type of driver who forms the great majority, the man who probably only takes his car out at the week-end, and then only for a short distance, is going to feel it an intolerable hardship to be restrained to 30 miles an hour in a built-up area, is based on their own experience and is not really representative of motorists on the whole.
Quite false, too, is any comparison of the speed limit introduced by this Clause and the late speed limit which my hon. and gallant Friend tried to enforce for so many years when he was at the Ministry of Transport. That was a general speed limit of 20 miles an hour all over the country, and I quite admit that there was not anyone who got into a car to go from one place to another who did not know when he started that he was going to break the law. But it is quite different now. Taking an ordinary journey, which is not always confined, as one might believe from listening to some hon. Members who have spoken, to industrial areas and the fringe of great cities but quite often cuts a line across country, an ordinary man who starts off on 100 miles North to South or East to West across England is going to be subjected to this limit of 30 miles an hour for only a small percentage of the miles that he is going to do. I cannot believe that there is anyone who really attaches so much importance to speed that he will set out on a journey of this kind feeling that, if there are out of the 100 miles five or 10 where he is asked to reduce his speed to 30 miles an hour, that is a hardship which he will be unable to bear. I do not think upon psychological grounds this argument really holds water.
Much more important are the considerations advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Reid) as to the way a provision of this kind is going to be enforced by the police. I was very glad to hear him say exactly the opposite of that said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe. He hoped that the enforcement of the Clause by the police would depend in future as largely as possible, not upon traps, but upon the mobile police with a speedometer. I was surprised to hear my hon. and gallant Friend say he hoped it would be done by traps.

Sir W. BRASS: I did not say I hoped it would be done by traps. I said I thought the police cop was very dangerous because they run into the back of cars.

Mr. STANLEY: From what I gathered from my hon. and gallant Friend during the Committee stage, it would require a fast police car to run into His back. I think the general sense of the House will be in favour of the enforcement of this as far as possible, not by a trap, but by the mobile police. If you are to depend upon the trap, you must put the trap in a place which may well not be the real place where you want to check the speed limit. As far as the Metropolitan Police were concerned, I was able to give the Committee upstairs the assurance, which I can repeat now, that as far as possible they intend to use the mobile police instead of the trap as a means of reform. I agree very thoroughly with all that has been said about the possibilities of the mobile police. In their hands to a large extent is going to lie not only the success of the provisions of this Clause, but the success of a great many of the provisions which Parliament has passed for ensuring safety upon the road. I ventured, like a sort of Daniel in the lions' den, the other day at a meeting of chief constables to suggest that a motor policeman was not just a policeman who had a motor car, and that it was essential that the police should set such a standard of driving knowledge and skill upon the road, that the person who was checked by them should feel that he was being checked by men of rare experience and really superior knowledge.
The next difficulty of importance is that of definition and of knowing exactly what the limit of the speed area is to be. I have met with a goodly number of questions from my personal friends upon this matter. I find that a good deal of the opposition to this Clause is based upon a complete misunderstanding of its scope. There are very few people outside the House, and, it may be, not many inside this House, who have realised the extent of the exclusion and inclusion which under the machinery of this Clause it is possible to adopt. When people criticise this scheme, and say that it cannot work, they always end by saying, "How can you expect me to go 30 miles an hour down the Great West Road," and none of them know that there are powers under this Clause to exclude areas, and that the whole object of those powers is to exclude that kind of road. I generally find that when I am able to explain that fact to them a great deal of their dissatisfaction disappears. I think that that is the answer to my hon. Friend representing one of the divisions of Manchester. He quoted one particular example. Although I am not entirely unfamiliar with that neighbourhood, that particular road is not one which I know, but from the account which he gave of it, it is exactly the kind of road where I foresaw the difficulties might occur, and to meet them I inserted these particular provisions in the Bill.
I should like to take this opportunity of explaining to hon. Members my intentions with regard to inclusions and exclusions. It is not my intention to bring a speed limit into force and then allow local authorities, piecemeal, to suggest that this area should be taken out or that area brought in. I intend to circularise local authorities at the earliest possible moment and ask them to submit general schemes for their areas, and I have no intention of bringing the Clause into force until I have most of these general schemes before me so that I am able to ensure uniformity of inclusions and exclusions throughout the country and, above all, make certain that satisfactory arrangements are made for the guidance of motorists. I make this present to hon. Members who oppose the Clause. I feel that their criticism during the Committee stage was extremely valuable and, although it has not changed in the least my opinion as to the principle embodied
in the Clause, they nevertheless put to me certain practical difficulties about its enforcement which since then I have endeavoured to meet.
It is not necessary for me to detain the House on the question of the principle underlying the Clause. We are told by many people that speed has nothing to do with accidents. Hon. Members have an experience of the roads in this country just as extensive as mine. On the question of speed they must have made up their minds one way or the other. I wonder whether there is any hon. Member who, putting aside any dialectic argument will say that speed has nothing to do with accidents, that there is no ratio between the speed of vehicles and the accidents that are caused. As a matter of fact, the best defence for the Clause I ever heard was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey last night. My hon. and gallant Friend has been very fierce but extremely courteous in his opposition. He is fortunate in having a simple philosophy of life. He divides everybody into two classes, the people who agree with him and those who do not; and he calls one modern and the other reactionary.
Last night we were discussing a system of pedestrian crossings in London, and I was reproached by my hon. and gallant Friend for not having been quick enough in introducing them and for not having introduced them in sufficient numbers. He went on to say that he attached the utmost importance to having these pedestrian crossings all over London, and his reason was that they would check speed. Why does the hon. and gallant Member want to check speed in London if it is not because he knows that in built-up areas speed is, and must be, a factor in accidents? I am not going to labour that point. We are not dealing with some mechanical subject or some scientific or economic doctrine; we are dealing with things which people can see for themselves every day in the week. I ask hon. Members is there anyone who in his heart of hearts does not know that if you can enforce the provisions of this Clause, if I was imbued with some super human power, so that by a wave of the wand I could ensure that within the areas we have defined it would be impossible for any car to exceed 30 miles an hour—is there anyone in this House who would deny that, in those circum-
stances, the roads in the built-up areas would be safer and the fatal accidents which occur upon them would be fewer? My hon. Friend made one very profound remark. He said there is not one single remedy to deal with this problem of fatal accidents that cannot be criticised by somebody and shown by dialectics to be impossible of success. Even in regard to the question of the greater enforcement of the existing law, hon. Members join in their desire to see the dangerous, careless driver more rigorously prosecuted and more severely punished.

Mrs. TATE: Hear, hear.

Mr. STANLEY: Quite so, and it is of course only a coincidence that if ever I do propose anything which has the effect of making more efficient the enforcement of those provisions which are already on the Statute Book it meets with immediate opposition from the hon. Lady and other hon. Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is possible to make a dialectical case against any proposals of this kind. I believe however that if we can enforce it—and I believe we can enforce it—it will result in a substantial reduction in the number of accidents upon the roads. I agree that it is experimental in its nature as it must be. It is not returning to the past, because never in the past has there been a speed limit of 30 miles an hour and never in the past has there been a speed limit confined to built-up areas. I have recognised its experimental nature by providing that it will come to an end at a certain period and that the Minister of Transport of the day will have to justify to the House its continuance, not upon arguments which can be turned one way or the other, but upon the actual results achieved. It is in the confident belief that when that time comes, the Minister of Transport, whoever he may be, who stands at this Box will have behind him solid facts to justify the continuance of the system that I ask the House now for its initiation.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. TURTON: The Minister in the course of his speech made a declaration—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide"]—which is of importance. He said he would not bring Clause 1 into force until he had schemes from all local authorities.

Mr. STANLEY: No, I thought I had made that clear. I said in Committee
that I could not commit myself to having schemes from all local authorities, because one minor local authority by refusing or delaying to send in a scheme might hold up the whole thing. What I said was that until I had sufficient to ensure uniformity I should not bring the Clause into force.

Mr. TURTON: It is because there is going to be this delay that I think the (House ought to reconsider the definition of a built-up area in the Bill. According to the present definition a built-up area is a lit-up area, and that is a definition which will cover suburban areas but not rural districts. The suggestion which I want the Minister to consider is that he should take out Sub-section (1, a) containing this definition about lighting. Throughout the rural districts there is grave dissatisfaction with this definition. I have recently been through Durham and Yorkshire. I have covered 800 miles, and nearly every village I went through in Durham had street lamps, because it had a colliery, and nearly every village I went through in Yorkshire had no street lamps, because there was no industry there. If this definition is to carry weight at all, it will mean that those villages with street amps will be built-up areas and those without street lamps will not be built-up

areas. It is a matter of considerable urgency, and the Minister admitted that he had toyed with the idea of defining built-up areas by the number of buildings alongside the road. The reason why he dismissed that idea is, he admitted on Second Reading, because it would mean that you would have to put up signposts-throughout the rural districts showing where the speed limit began and ended, but that is the very thing that he is doing by the new Amendment which he has introduced. Surely, therefore, it would be far better to get a new definition of a built-up area. I am not going to argue against the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon), who believes that speed does not cause accidents, but last year, under the present regulations, 1,100 children under 15 were called, and of those, 50O were killed by running into the roadway. No enforcement of dangerous driving regulations would ever prevent those children being killed, but you would get it by a limitation of speed in built-up areas; and, therefore, I think this Clause should remain in the Bill.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to 'a.m.' in line 11, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 187: Noes, 30.

Division No. 311.]
AYES.
[10.48 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Crossley, A. C.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Albery, Irving James
Daggar, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Apsley, Lord
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Atholl, Duchess of
Dickie, John P.
Hepworth, Joseph


Attlee, Clement Richard
Dobbie, William
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Drewe, Cedric
Holdsworth, Herbert


Batey, Joseph
Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C)
Edmondson, Major Sir James
Horsbrugh, Florence


Bernays, Robert
Edwards, Charles
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Boulton, W. W.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.


Boyce, H. Les[...]e
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Janner, Barnett


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Jenkins, Sir William


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Ker, J. Campbell


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Kimball, Lawrence


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Knight, Holford


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Law Sir Alfred


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lawson, John James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Goff, Sir Park
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Cook, Thomas A.
Goldie, Noel B.
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick


Cooks, Douglas
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Logan, David Gilbert


Copeland, Ida
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Grimths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mabane, William


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Groves, Thomas E.
MacAndraw, Lt-Col. C. G. (Partick)


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Somervell, Sir Donald


McCorquodale, M. S.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Spens, William Patrick


McEntee, Valentine L.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


McKie, John Hamilton
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Stevenson, James


Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Rankin, Robert
Stones, James


Magnay, Thomas
Rathbone, Eleanor
Strauss, Edward A.


Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Rea, Walter Russell
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Field, David D. (County Down)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Tinker, John Joseph


Milne, Charles
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Milner, Major James
Rickards, George William
Turton, Robert Hugh


Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tt'd & Chisw'k)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Morgan, Robert H.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Rothschild, James A. de
White, Henry Graham


Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Whyte, Jardine Bell


O'Connor, Terence James
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Palmer, Francis Noel
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Wise, Alfred R.


Patrick, Colin M.
Savery, Samuel Servington
Womersley, Sir Walter


Pearson, William G.
Selley, Harry R.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Peat, Charles U.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Penny, Sir George
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin



Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)
Skelton, Archibald Noel
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Mr. Blindell and Commander


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Smith. Tom (Normanton)
Southby.


Pybus, Sir Percy John
Smithers, Sir Waldron



NOES.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Hales, Harold K.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Lees-Jones, John
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Llewellin, Major John J.
Storey, Samuel


Broadbent, Colonel John
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Summersby, Charles H.


Carver, Major William H.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Dlxey, Arthur C. N.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Remer, John R.



Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greene, William P. C
Salmon, Sir Isldore
Sir William Brass and Sir Gifford Fox.


Question put, and agreed to.

Amendments made: In page I, line 11, leave out "a.m. and twelve," and insert "in the morning and."

In line 16, leave out "at distances."—[Mr. Stanley.]

10.58 p.m.

Mr. STEVENSON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, at the end, to insert,
and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
The object of the Amendment is to eliminate imprisonment as one of the penalties which may be enforced on a driver who breaks the speed limit. I want to make it clear at the outset that we are dealing here with the technical breach of the speed limit, and that the offence will still remain where the speed limit is broken in conjunction with dangerous or careless driving. I am asking the House to agree that where a person breaks the speed limit he should
be convicted without being liable to the penalty of imprisonment. I can best explain to the House how these words affect this purpose by referring to the Act of 1930. Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 states that if a person should contravene this Section he shall be guilty of an offence under Section 10 of the Road Traffic Act of 1930. That Section deals with a breach of the speed limit of heavy motor vehicles, and it provides that a driver of such a vehicle shall be guilty of an offence under the Act. No penalty is specified in the Section with reference to a breach of that speed limit. We have therefore to turn to Section 113 of the 1930 Act, and we find a provision that where in a Section of the Act which creates an offence there is no specified penalty, the penalty for an offence under the Act shall be a fine not exceeding £20 for the first offence and a fine not exceeding £50, or imprisonment, for a second offence.
Therefore, unless we have a special penalty attached to this Clause, imprisonment
may be imposed for a second offence. I would also remind the House that in addition to imprisonment there is a further penalty which may be inflicted by the court, which under Section 6 of the Road Traffic Act is empowered either to cancel or suspend a driving licence. Therefore, for the technical offence of breaking the speed limit, the penalty on a second conviction may be a fine not exceeding £50 or imprisonment, and the person convicted may have his licence suspended. I ask the House to consider for a moment the advisability of making imprisonment a penalty for this offence. For the technical offence of breaking a speed limit of 3C miles an hour, without furious driving or dangerous driving, imprisonment, I suggest, is a very unsuitable penalty. Let the House consider how easily the offence may be committed. We all know how difficult it is to judge the speed of a motor car to within about 10 miles an hour, particularly after one has been going along in the open country and drops down from a higher speed. People may say, "Look at the speedometer"; but I suppose most people have had the experience of finding that the speedometer is not working.
I think the very best reason for putting forward this Amendment is found in the words used by the Minister with reference to road signs. Some hon. Members said there must be signs on the roadway itself, or motorists would not see them, and others suggested that the signs should be at the side of the road, and in replying to them the Minister said, "It is going to be no defence for a motorist to say that he did not see a sign or that the sign was not there." Where a motorist may not see a sign, or where there may not be a sign, it is going a little too far to suggest that the motorist should stand a chance of being imprisoned. There is another reason in support of my Amendment, and a rather important one. In Scotland, in any case where imprisonment is a possible penalty for an offence any person who is charged with that offence must attend before the court. Hon. Members must imagine an Englishman spending a holiday in Scotland and being charged with this offence and his conviction—if he is convicted—being his second conviction. He must go to Scotland to attend the court; if he
fails to do so he will be arrested and taken before the court. That will be a considerable inconvenience; and exactly the same inconvenience will be suffered by people in various parts of Scotland. A wage-earner may not only be liable to a fine but to a loss of several days pay, and I suggest that is far too harsh a penalty for anyone who is guilty of what may be a technical offence.

Mr. JOHN WALLACE: I beg to second the Amendment. After the full explanation given by my hon. Friend, I will content myself with formally seconding the Amendment.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: My hon. Friend has explained the matter so clearly and cogently that I should like to assure him that if I had not already told him that I was in favour of it, his speech would certainly have converted me. I think he is right when he says that it is an anachronism that, even as a dead letter, the possibility of the penalty of imprisonment for a breach of the speed law should remain. He has also shown that it is not entirely a dead letter, because it may have inconvenient repercussions in Scotland. It is obviously not right that that sort of offence should be punished with imprisonment, and I am certainly glad to accept the principle of the Amendment. Some alteration will have to be made in the Amendment, because it is not right that the possible penalty of imprisonment should be abolished in the case of a private motor ear while it still remains in the original Act of 1930 in respect of other motor vehicles. We shall have to make necessary changes in the form of words to make certain that the drivers of commercial vehicles are also relieved from the possibility of imprisonment. With that reservation, I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

11.8 p.m.

Sir W. BRASS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, at the end, to insert:
Provided that no person shall be convicted of an offence of exceeding the limits of speed to be observed under this section on the uncorroborated evidence of one person alone as to the alleged rate of speed. The corroborative evidence of a speedometer shall not be deemed to be sufficient unless witnessed by more than one person at the time of the alleged offence.
I think the Amendment speaks for itself. It is necessary if a speedometer is to be used, as was suggested by the Minister, for enforcing the speed limit two people should be in the vehicle during the time that the speedometer is being used for that purpose. It is dangerous that a single person, looking at a speedometer a motor bicycle, for instance, should be expected to give evidence by himself, simply with the corroboration of the speedometer, and should get a conviction in that way. There was a case quite recently where a motor bicycle was pursuing a car, with the object of finding out at what speed the vehicle was travelling. The car stopped rather suddenly, and the policeman who was driving the motor bicycle, looking at the speedometer to see how fast the car was going and not looking where he was going, ran into the back of the car which he was pursuing. That is one reason why I think it necessary to have two people present on such an occasion. Apart from that, it is necessary to have the corroborative evidence of two individuals to say at what speed the vehicle was going. It is extremely difficult if one is behind another car to know how fast the care in front is travelling. I have often been in my car and as I have approached another car from the back I have come to the conclusion that it was going a good deal faster than it really was going. The reason was that I did not notice that I was approaching at perhaps five or 10 miles an hour faster speed. It is quite easy to do that without noticing it from behind.
It really is necessary that we should have the corroborative evidence of two people on such occasions. I feel sure that the Minister will give careful consideration to this point. In the original Act, Section 10, Sub-section (3), the evidence of one witness is not enough as to the rate of speed. But it says nothing about the speedometer. Speedometer corroboration, I believe, has been taken in court as evidence. I want to see corroborative evidence available as well as speedometer evidence.

11.11 p.m.

Sir G. FOX: I beg to second the Amendment.
I have seen recently in one of the newspapers a statement that the Ministry of
Transport is testing a new form of speed trap. Two invisible beams are thrown across the road in the way that these things are used for checking races. When the motor breaks the first beam it automatically sets mechanism in motion, and if the car passes over the second beam too quickly it is automatically recorded in a chart and a concealed camera takes a picture of the car and its number. If any such form of machine is used it is necessary that there should be two witnesses watching to see that the motor car which breaks the first and second rays is the motor car in question, and then there will be no doubt about getting the right car when the police call in the evening to collect the recording machine.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: The Amendment resolves itself into two parts. One requires corroborative evidence and the second says that the speedometer shall not be taken as corroborative evidence. With regard to the first part, I am advised that the position is already covered, and that this Clause has to be read in conjunction with the Sub-section to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred, Section 10, Sub-section (3). I am not wholly happy on the point, and I am certainly not quite happy as to the position under any speed limit which is imposed under Section 46 of the 1930 Act. It is obviously desirable that all speed limits under whatever Act should be subject to the same procedure, and I intend to look at the position again before another place.
With regard to the second point, it has been held by the courts that a speedometer can be taken as corroborative evidence and I am not prepared to upset that decision. The example which the hon. Member used, is, I regret to say, a very strong argument against the adoption of his Amendment. Provided that the Clause stands, without his Amendment, if you have a police car, with one man driving and another man watching the speedometer, the driver keeps his eyes on the road because the evidence of the man who is with him will be enough. If this Amendment were passed you might have two men in the car but both watching the speedometer and neither of them keeping his eyes on the road. I am con-
vinced that the corroboration of the speedometer is at any rate sufficient to establish a prima facie case, and I do not think the motorist is likely to suffer any injustice from it.

Sir W. BRASS: I was thinking of the factor of safety. Could not the Minister devise a way by which where two police officers were concerned, one could watch the speedometer while the other was driving the car? I agree that my Amendment might, and probably would, mean that both would be watching the speedometer and neither watching the road. I wanted to point out the danger of an officer, driving a car alone, or driving a motor-bicycle, simply watching his speedometer and running into the hack of the other car. If the Minister could undertake that two people should be there, although one was driving, the other could be watching the speedometer.

Mr. STANLEY: I cannot give the hon. and gallant Gentleman an undertaking, but I will look into the point. I can give the additional information that, as far as London is concerned, it is extremely unlikely that the sort of thing the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in mind will ever occur, that is, a single person both watching the speedometer and driving.

Sir W. BRASS: In view of the Minister's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made:

In page 2, line 23, after "after," insert "giving."

In line 24, leave out "thereof," and insert "of their intention to make an order under this sub-section."

In line 29, after the first "after," insert "giving."

Leave out "thereof," and insert "of their intention to make an order under this sub-section."—[Mr. Stanley.]

In page 3, line 35, at tike end, insert:
Provided that on the expiration of this section sub-section (2) of section thirty-eight of the Interpretation Act, 1889, shall apply as if this section had been repealed by another enactment taking effect at the time of the expiration thereof."—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]

CLAUSE4.—(Exceeding speed limits and careless driving (endorsement of licence and disqualification).)

11.19 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 4, line 34, at the end, to insert:
Provided that where within the three years next before the date on which he is convicted for an offence under this section the offender has been convicted for an offence under section eleven of this Act that conviction shall be treated for the purposes of this sub-section as if it had been a conviction for an offence under this section.
This Amendment is in fulfilment or a promise given by my hon. Friend to the Committee. The effect of the proviso will be that a person convicted for careless driving will not be treated as a first offender if he has been convicted of dangerous driving in the preceding there years. There was a good deal of discussion on the point in Committee, and my hon. Friend gave an undertaking to put in this Amendment.

11.20 p.m.

Sir W. BRASS: In Committee the Minister gave an undertaking that, as far as the speed limit was concerned, the endorsement of a licence should only last for one year. I do not see in this Amendment anything about the limitation to one year, and should be glad if my hon. and gallant Friend could explain how that promise is implemented in the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: My hon. and gallant Friend will find that that question comes up on the next Amendment which I shall move.

Amendment agreed to.

11.21 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 4, line 34, at the end, to insert:
(3) The following sub-section shall be substituted for sub-section (5) of section eight of the principal Act:—
(5) "Where an order has been made in respect of a person under this Part of this Act, or the corresponding provisions of any Act repealed by this Act, requiring the-endorsement of any licence held by him, he shall be entitled, either on applying for the grant of a licence under this Part of this Act or subject to a payment of a fee of five shillings and subject to surrender of any subsisting licence on application at any time, to have issued to him a new licence free from endorsements—

(a) if he has, during a continuous period of three years or upwards since the order was made, had no such order made against him, or no such order other than an order made more than one year before the date of his application, and by reason only of a conviction for the offence of driving a motor vehicle at a speed exceeding a speed limit; or
(b) where the order was made by reason only of such a conviction as aforesaid and immediately before the order was made he was the holder of, or was entitled to have issued to him, a licence free from any endorsement or free from any endorsement except of particulars in relation to such a conviction as aforesaid, if he has during a continuous period of one year or upwards since the order was made had no order requiring endorsement made against him:
Provided that in reckoning the said continuous periods of three years and one year, respectively, any period during which the applicant was by virtue of the order disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence shall be excluded.
This provides that a man shall not be debarred from getting a clean licence if his only endorsement is one in respect of a conviction more than a year old for exceeding the speed limit. That was my hon. Friend's promise.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE5.—(Tests of competence to drive of new applicants for licences and of offenders ordered to be tested.)

11.22 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel. HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 5, line 19, after "not," to insert:
and whether or not the court makes an order under section six of the principal Act disqualifying him for holding or obtaining a licence to drive a motor vehicle.
This is a drafting Amendment, its object being to make it clear that the power to disqualify pending the passing of a driving test is in addition to, and not in derogation from, any existing power to disqualify a person from holding or obtaining a driving licence.

Amendment agreed to.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. McKEAG: I beg to move, in page 6, line 12, at the end, to insert:
(5) Where the applicant for the grant of a licence to drive has paid to the licensing authority a fee for the issue of a provisional licence to enable him to learn to drive a motor vehicle he shall not be required to pay a further fee on the issue of a licence to drive.
This Amendment is, I think, self-explanatory, and I will content myself with saying that, if a man has applied for a provisional licence to learn to drive during this month and qualifies in driving next month, having paid 5s. for his licence this month, I think it is a real hardship that he should be called upon to pay a further 5s. next month. Even under the present regulations it is a ground of complaint that anyone who suffers from a disability, and has to undergo a test and pays 5s. originally for his licence, is called upon to pay another 5s. I think that one fee ought to be sufficient in these cases.

Mr. JANNER: I beg to second the Amendment.

11.24 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but the fee for a driving licence is not in the nature of a tax; it is merely a charge made in respect of the administrative expenses of the local authority in preparing and maintaining the necessary records and other documents in these cases. In theory-there is something to be said for a higher fee in the first instance, and then a lower fee subsequently, but in practice it has been found that a flat rate of 5s. is best. I do not honestly think there is any real reason why this should not be paid. On the whole it is fair and it pays the administration expenses of the local authorities. It is not a tax, and on the whole it is better to leave it as it is.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made:

In page 6, line 15, after "the," insert "selection and appointment of."—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]

Mr. D. GRENFELL: I beg to move, in page 6, line 23, to leave out paragraph (b).
This is a provision by which a driver has to pay 10s. for a driving fee. The Minister in Committee promised to give further consideration to the point. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what has come of that promise?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I think the hon. Member is mistaken about any promise being given. It was the amount of the fee that we were discussing in Committee, and the objection was raised
that it was too much. I explained that we put the maximum of 10s. in the Bill. We did not think it would come to anything like that, but we thought it better to fix that maximum.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to move,
That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.
I make this Motion in order to ask the Chief Whip how far it is intended to go to-night?

Captain STRICKLAND: I beg to second the Motion.

11.30 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): It cannot be denied that we have made very substantial progress. We have got through the main part of the Bill. It is now 11.30, and I think if I could get an assurance from all quarters of the House that we can conclude all stages of the Bill—the remaining part of the Report stage and the Third Reading—by not later than 1.30 to-morrow, we might now adjourn the Debate. I must make it clear to the House that I must have an assurance from all quarters because many people are interested in this matter. If I got that assurance, I shall be prepared to agree to the adjournment of the Debate.

11.31 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: So far as the Opposition is concerned, we shall be only too glad for the Government to finish this Bill by 1.30 to-morrow. We have nothing much further to say on the Bill, and we certainly shall not delay it.

Captain STRICKLAND: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether there is any other business to be taken To-morrow?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): The hon. and gallant Member seconded the Motion for the Adjournment, and has exhausted his right to speak.

Sir W. BRASS: May I ask whether there is any other business to be discussed to-morrow before this Bill is taken, or whether we shall go straight on with the Report stage and after that take Third Reading, and then after half-past one continue with other business?

Captain MARGESSON: The business announced for to-morrow is the Third Reading of the Road Traffic Bill, the Third Reading of the Milk Bill, the Third Reading of the British Sugar (Subsidy) Bill and the Second Reading of the Administration of Justice (Appeals) Bill. It is clear that the first Order to be taken to-morrow will be the conclusion of the Report stage of the Road Traffic Bill, followed by the Third Reading, the agreement being that we should conclude it by half-past one and then proceed with the Third Reading of the Milk Bill and subsequently with the Third Reading of the British Sugar (Subsidy) Bill. If it is understood in all quarters of the House that that shall be the programme, I shall be glad to accept the Motion.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), and on re-committal, to be further considered To-morrow

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-six Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.